PRIVATE BUSINESS

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Nuclear Installations

David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the environmental and social impact of nuclear installations in the vicinity of the Severn estuary and the Bristol channel.

Don Touhig: I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues.

David Heath: I am grateful for that informative answer.
	The Bristol channel area probably contains the highest concentration of nuclear installations anywhere. Given that fact, given the strong feelings on both sides of the channel about expansion of the nuclear industry—last evidenced during the inquiry into Hinkley C more than a decade ago—and given the energy review that is now under way, does the Minister not think it important for the Wales Office and the National Assembly for Wales to have an opportunity to put a case to those conducting the review regarding feelings in Wales and, incidentally, in the west country?

Don Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is very important. I can tell him that I represent the Wales Office on the performance and innovation unit's review body. The energy review was announced by the Prime Minister in June 2001, and is examining strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050. The Prime Minister will receive a copy of the report before the end of the year, and will then make a decision on its publication. Obviously I cannot say what its content will be at this stage, but I am sure that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be debated vigorously as soon as it is published.

Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend will know of the findings of Dr. Chris Busby on the incidence of cancers in populations living along the Severn estuary. He will also know that the Welsh cancer intelligence and surveillance unit is studying those findings. Does he agree that, where scientific findings on public health issues are concerned, we must insist on the fullest candour and exposure of the evidence on the part of all involved?

Don Touhig: I am aware of the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend following the publication of Dr. Busby's report in April. I am also aware of the report's contents. A report by the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment comparing the pattern of cancer cases around nuclear installations with the national pattern is nearing completion and, hopefully, will be published by the end of the year. I am also aware that the Assembly has asked the intelligence and surveillance unit to report on childhood cancer data relating to the Chepstow area, which will be published early in the new year. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should then engage in the fullest possible discussion of its contents.

Simon Thomas: The Minister has an important role to play on the PIU working party. Given the discussions and concerns on both sides of the Severn about nuclear power stations, will he take this opportunity to rule out any expansion of nuclear energy in Wales or the west country? Will he also tell us what consideration the working party is giving to the huge potential for tidal energy generation on the Severn? Finally, does he agree that we in Wales need what Scotland was given this week—a report stating exactly where renewable energy will be produced in the country, in this case Wales?

Don Touhig: I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman asking me exactly the same question in the Welsh Grand Committee on 28 November. He will know that my response must be the same now—that it would not be proper for me to comment on the contents of the PIU report until it is published. I can tell him that there was no presumption either for or against nuclear power as a source of energy for our country, but he and other Members must now wait until the report is published. I have no doubt that the matters he has raised will be discussed fully then.

Working Families Tax Credit

Hywel Francis: How many households in Wales have benefited from the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: The Inland Revenue estimates that 76,000 families were receiving working families tax credit on 31 May 2001.

Hywel Francis: In my constituency, 1,300 families benefit from the tax credit. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a vital part of the Government's anti-child-poverty agenda? Does he also agree that the work of the Children's Society in Wales is also part of that agenda?

Don Touhig: Indeed I do. The Government are committed to making work pay by improving incentives to help people move from benefit into work. I know that there was a debate in Westminster Hall about the Children's Society this morning, and I share some of the worries expressed by many Members about its decision to pull out of Wales.
	It is important to recognise the value of schemes such as the working families tax credit in moving people from benefit into work. According to the labour force survey results published today, Wales has accounted for well over half the job growth in the United Kingdom in the last quarter, and 14,000 more people are in work now than in the last quarter. Working families tax credit and similar measures are turning out to be a very good story for the people of Wales.

Hywel Williams: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious lack of appropriate child care, particularly in very rural areas such as Caernarfon, despite the generous provision in the working families tax credit for child care? When he next meets his colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales, will he press for development of child care in very rural areas by means of the national child care strategy?

Don Touhig: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. A total of 2,200 families benefit from the working families tax credit in his constituency. Throughout Wales, 38,000 lone parents have been helped into work. There is an element of the child care strategy attached to the working families tax credit, but I am aware from my constituency surgeries of the problems that he outlines. I shall raise that with colleagues in the Assembly when I next meet them.

Betty Williams: Seventeen hundred hard-working families in my constituency have also benefited from the working families tax credit. Does my hon. Friend agree that working tax credits will build on the enormous success of the working families tax credit and get more people into work?

Don Touhig: I do. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, when knocking on doors during the recent general election, I found lots of people who did not have children and could not benefit from the working families tax credit but who felt that they needed some help and support, too. The Government are committed to that. That is why we will have the working tax credit and child tax credit in place from 2003.

Greg Knight: On behalf of Conservative Members, may I offer our condolences to Labour Members on the sad loss of Ray Powell? I knew him better than most in my party, in that we worked together for many years through the usual channels. We disagreed often but he was usually fun to work with and always kept his word. He will be sorely missed in all parts of the House.
	Is not the most alarming thing about the working families tax credit the fact that it is costing employers approximately £100 million a year to pay it through the wage packet? How much of that burden is falling on employers based in Wales? Does the Minister accept that the scheme ignores the needs of those in training? How does he intend to deal with that?

Don Touhig: I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about Ray Powell. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have many stories to tell of their associations and work with Ray. He will be sadly missed, and is a great loss to the House and to his constituents.
	The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that his party was totally opposed to the working families tax credit, just as it was opposed to the introduction of the national minimum wage, the working tax credit and the child tax credit. We are putting those measures in place in order to make work pay. It is no good moving people from poverty in benefit to poverty in work. The working families tax credit and the other tax credits, coupled with the national minimum wage, mean that today a person working 35 hours a week in Wales will have a minimum income of £225. That is a good news story.

Innovation and Enterprise

Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with other ministers and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about steps to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales.

Paul Murphy: I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues in government and with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues, including innovation and enterprise.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent pre-Budget report announced a number of measures that build on existing programmes to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Those include the extension of research and development tax credits to all UK companies and support for small businesses, which will benefit many small and medium enterprises in Wales.

Chris Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that there are many highly innovative medium businesses in the Rhondda, such as MFC Survival and Harwin's, but they are still based in outdated buildings, and they have terrible difficulties attracting finance for expansion. What further aid can the Government give to small businesses such as those, so that our small industries become medium industries and our medium industries become large industries that can beat the world?

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because it is important for the House to understand that small and medium-sized businesses in Wales now form the backbone of the Welsh economy. Some 600,000 people work in Wales in 140,000 companies, some of which are based in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Assembly, together with the Welsh executive responsible for European matters, has instigated the joining together of Finance Wales and Barclays to provide £40 million to develop Welsh firms. It is a partnership between the Government and the Assembly to help small and medium-sized firms in his constituency and in the rest of Wales. That partnership is working and that is why we have had news today that 14,000 more people are in work in Wales than in the early summer.

Lembit �pik: May I first add the Liberal Democrats' condolences to the friends and family of Ray Powell, whose memory will live on in our hearts?
	Did the Secretary of State note, in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, that the regional analysis showed that the gap between rich and poor is twice as bad in the UK as it is in the US and worse than in any other EU country? In order to stimulate the kind of growth that he described, would he lend his support to calls for a regional enhancement to the research and development tax credit, which could significantly help businesses to develop so as to close that gap in Wales?

Paul Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Ray Powell, with which we all agree. The most important decision that the Government took on regional aid, which the National Assembly has implemented, was to obtain and fund objective 1 funding for two thirds of Wales. That is the means by which we can ensure that the gap between the wealthier and poorer areas of Wales shrinks. In addition, the Government indicated in the pre-Budget report that they would provide stamp duty relief for some 363 wards in Wales. We are also introducing a community investment tax credit that will deliver capital to disadvantaged communities. The aids that the Chancellor has introduced, together with objective 1 funding, are the answer to the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Dai Havard: My right hon. Friend will share my concern that Impress Metal Packaging in Rhymney is set to close, despite the efforts of the workers to keep it open. That will be a desperate blow to an area of high unemployment, but it is an illustration of a company in an oversubscribed market that could have done with some new product development. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that his efforts will continue, to ensure that all elements of the Government will co-operate with the National Assembly and its agencies to find new employment skills and opportunities for those affected by the closure?

Paul Murphy: Yes, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on behalf of those people who work at Impress in his constituency. He will be aware that the National Assembly and the Government are introducing measures that should help those who will be made redundanta decision that all of us regretand that new jobs are coming to that part of Wales: to Tredegar with Desklink, and Ebbw Vale with Continental Teaves. He rightly makes the point that we must emphasise training, through ELWaEducation and Learning Walesand other agencies in Wales, and I am grateful to him for introducing the subject in the House.

Nigel Evans: I wish to be associated with the remarks about Ray Powell. He represented Ogmore and Wales over many years and he will be sadly missed, especially at Welsh questions. Our thoughts are with Marion and his family at this time.
	In the past three months, more than 2,000 manufacturing job losses have been announced in Wales, with Sony, Alcan, Corning and Alcoa among the well known names that have announced job cuts or closures. Why do not the Government care about manufacturing?

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Ray Powell; it is kind of him to make them on the Opposition's behalf. On the issue of manufacturing, the hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear what I told the House some moments ago. Unemployment in Wales has fallen again, and we have 14,000 more jobs in Wales than we did back in the early summer. That is testimony to a Government who have produced a stable and strong economy, with inflation and interest rates at record low levels. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that compares with the nearly 3 million jobs in manufacturing that disappeared over the 18 years the previous Conservative Government were in office.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the statistics regarding the different firms coming to Wales. He will know that many jobs are being created in the manufacturing sector. I mentioned Ebbw Vale, but the same is true of Tredegar, Pontardawe, Abertillery, Deeside, Llanelli and Swansea. Many jobs are being created in Wales as a direct consequence of the strong and stable economy in the United Kingdom, and in Wales itself.

Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State is clearly not listening either. He knows that there has been an increase in unemployment in the manufacturing sector, which is vital to Wales. The Confederation of British Industry regional trends survey reveals that investment intentions for buildings, plant and machinery for the next 12 months are extremely weak. Will the Secretary of State look again at the climate change levy, which loads extra costs on manufacturers? Will he also give an assurance today that Welsh businesses will not face a supplementary business tax?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will know that business rates are a matter for the National Assembly, which is discussing that and other issues with business in Wales.
	On the climate change levy, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales recently met representatives of the CBI and the Trades Union Congress to discuss the matter. However, despite what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has said, thousands and thousands of jobs are coming into Wales, and many are in the manufacturing sector or high-tech industries. That is news to be welcomed. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could the House come to order? It is far too noisy.

Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the universities form one of the engines of enterprise and innovation in Wales? Will he therefore support the bid of the North East Wales Institute for university status?

Paul Murphy: I welcome the work that the North East Wales Institute has done to encourage enterprise and improve the economic life of north-east Wales and of north Wales as a whole. I am especially glad to have met recently the college's new principal, Professor Scott, and we await the institute's application for university status.

Dee Estuary

Ben Chapman: When he plans to discuss the economy of the Dee estuary with the First Secretary.

Paul Murphy: I have discussed economic issues surrounding the Dee estuary strategy with the First Minister during our regular bilateral meetings.
	I have also contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on these issues. In addition, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Wales has discussed several areas of concern with Welsh Environment and Rural Affairs Ministers.

Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Deeside economy is, in effect, unitary? The gain or loss of jobs one side of the river affects the other side equally, as people cross the river in both directions to find work. Given that jobs have been lost at Corus but gained at Toyota, does my right hon. Friend consider that the post-devolution relationship between the Welsh Development Agency and the North West development agency is as close and integrated as it needs to be to tackle these problems?

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend has raised this issue in the House on many occasions. He and I met recently to discuss the common purpose for industry and the environment on both sides of the Wales/England border. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I hope to visit the Dee estuary fairly soon in the new year, and I hope that he will join me. I agree that, economically, there is much to be gained through co-operation between the National Assembly and the Government.

Foot and Mouth

David Cameron: What discussions he has had with secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales about the impact of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues, including the impact of foot and mouth disease. I also have regular discussions with the Welsh Agriculture Minister.
	I welcome the recent news that Wales has now been classified as disease free. Farmers, Government and other stakeholders must now work together towards creating a viable long-term future for farming in Wales.

David Cameron: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Will he explain which of the many inquiries into foot and mouthnone of which are publicwill look at how the devolved authorities in Wales handled the issue? In particular, which inquiry will consider whether devolution was a help or a hindrance?

Don Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, three independent inquiries are considering the lessons to be learned from the problems caused by foot and mouth. Two of the three will apply to Wales and I have no doubt that his point will be covered in the reports.

Huw Edwards: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that Wales is now free of foot and mouth. Does he agree that it is important to resume the exporting of meat, which is very important to farmers in Monmouthshire? Will he also speak to the Minister for Rural Affairs in the National Assembly to ensure that we have more abattoir facilities, especially in south-east Wales?

Don Touhig: I welcome the re-establishment of Welsh lamb and beef in the domestic and export markets. That is important, and the recent announcement means that we can start to export our produce again. Discussions are currently taking place between those with a wide range of interests in the matter, and I believe that we shall make progress before too long.
	I am aware of my hon. Friend's point about abattoirs. When I was recently in mid-Wales, I discussed with a number of producers the problems caused by not having enough abattoirs. I have also discussed the matter with my colleague, the Assembly Secretary responsible for agriculture. I have another bilateral set up with him in a week or so, and I will take up the issue further. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chamber is still far too noisy.

Elfyn Llwyd: I associate myself and Plaid Cymru with the condolences expressed to the family of the late Sir Ray Powell.
	On the impact of foot and mouth on small and medium-sized businesses in tourism, will the Minister reconsider the amount of compensation directly available to those businesses? Will he also contact the Wales tourist board to hear whether it is satisfied with its current budget for advertising, which is important at this time of year to obtain next season's bookings?

Don Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about our colleague, Ray Powell.
	I am aware of the problems faced by tourism in rural areas. I have travelled across north and mid-Wales several times in the past few months to meet people who run small hotels and other facilities. I understand the difficulties that they face. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Assembly announced a 65 million rural recovery package, which included 4.2 million for marketing and the development of the tourism business. I have recently had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and he has advised me of a number of initiatives that the British tourist authority and the Wales tourist board will take to ensure that we recapture markets and get people to return to Wales for their holidays.

Manufacturing

Graham Brady: What assessment he has made of the impact of levels of education and skills on the level of manufacturing employment in Wales.

Paul Murphy: Increasing skills is vital to raising productivity in all parts of Britain. The National Assembly has launched for consultation an action plan to increase the demand for skilled employment in Wales. This contains 50 positive proposals to improve skills and employment levels in Wales.

Graham Brady: Given the policies that have been set out to improve skills and education, why is the net rate of manufacturing job losses in Wales the highest it has been since 1983?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the point I made to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I referred to the 14,000 jobs that have come to Wales in the past few months. In addition to that, unemployment in Wales has dropped and there are many more jobs as a result of the partnership between the Government and the National Assembly. In the past 12 months, 7,500 manufacturing jobs have come to Walesto Ebbw Vale, Abertillery, Llanelli, Deeside and Swansea.

Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that Blaenau Gwent council has financially supported the conversion of a Victorian theatre into a high-tech training and skills centre for the arts and culture generally. He will also be aware that it has failed to receive supporting funding through objective 1. Is he aware that the cost of the conversion is equivalent to only half the yearly subsidy to the proposed new millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay?

Paul Murphy: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the theatre at Abertillery. He and I will be meeting later today to discuss those matters. In the first instance, I encourage his local authority to re-submit its application.

Hill Farming

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the problems facing hill farming in Wales.

Don Touhig: The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease has exacerbated an already difficult situation for Welsh hill farmers.
	I therefore welcome the Assembly's strategy Farming for the Future, which sets out a vision for the industry to achieve sustainability. I encourage farmers to work closely with the Assembly and other partners to ensure that the necessary changes are made to secure a good agricultural future for Wales.

Anne McIntosh: The House will be aware of my general interest in hill farming in the whole of Great Britain. What possible future does the Minister see for hill farming in Wales against a background of reform in the European Union and the next round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation?

Don Touhig: There are a number of hill farmers in my constituency and I was talking to one of them this morning. He outlined some of the serious problems that he has faced and continues to face. He told me that what we must do above all else is to reinvigorate farmers and give them a new enthusiasmyoung farmers in particularso that they believe that they have a future. The Government, working in partnership with the National Assembly, will seek to achieve that. Farming for the Future, the strategy to which I referred, will make a major contribution to that success.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Annette Brooke: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 December.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, may I sayI hope on behalf of all Members of the Househow sad we were to learn of the death of Sir Ray Powell? He was a great servant of the people of Ogmore, a champion of the valleys, a long-standing and loyal member of the Labour party, and an excellent Member of Parliament. I believe that he will be deeply missed on both sides of the House.
	In relation to my engagements, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Annette Brooke: Is the Prime Minister aware of the financial difficulties experienced by the councils in my constituency when providing essential social services for the vulnerablethe young and the elderly? Does he agree that it is essential to provide adequate, good social care, along with better funding for the national health service?

Tony Blair: I do agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that, in addition to the national health service being properly funded, social services are funded too. I know that the hon. Lady will agree that the settlement ofI think6.7 per cent. for Dorset for the next year is excellent, and it should allow that council to make greater provision for people in respect of social services.

Linda Gilroy: Three months on from 11 September, will the Prime Minister share with the House his view on the outlook for fighting terrorism? In that regard, will he say what importance he attaches to the emergency legislation before the House this week?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of not letting the time that has elapsed since 11 September dim either our outrage at the events of 11 September or, indeed, the absolute certaintyshared on both sides of the House at the timethat it was right that we strengthen the law in order to make sure that we could deal with the dangers of terrorism in our country and elsewhere in the world. We have put forward those measures, on advice, because we genuinely believe them essential in order to fight terrorism properly. They are, in my view, necessary in order to diminish the risk of terrorist attack in this country and elsewhere, and I hope thateven at this stageboth sides of the House will support the measures and allow us to put them in place as soon as possible so that we can prosecute the war against terrorism successfully in this country as well as abroad.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in paying our respects to Sir Ray who was, as he said, a much-respected Member of the House? He was not always an easy Membera tough Member and a tough opponentbut none the less a much-respected Member. Our condolences go from this side of the House to all his family.
	Last week, the Prime Minister said that he was committed to increasing spending on the health service to 8 per cent. of national income. Yesterday, the Chancellor said it was not a commitment but a policy. So, what is it? Is it a commitment? Will the Prime Minister confirm that?

Tony Blair: In fact, the Chancellor said exactly what I said. The fact is that it is, indeed, the policy of this Government to increase our spending on the national health service, and the figures will, of course, be set out in the comprehensive spending review. That is a manifesto commitment that we have made as well. Now, we are committed to increase public spending in the NHSperhaps the right hon. Gentleman would now tell us whether he is?

Iain Duncan Smith: I think that the Prime Minister ought to talk more to his best friend, because his best friend does not think that that is a commitment, but if it is a commitment, perhaps he would now like to comment on this: the Chancellor said that the NHS was the most efficient form of health care available to this countryand he is nodding. If that is indeed the case and the Prime Minister achieves his 8 per cent., does he expect that the health service in this country will be at an equivalent standard to health services in Europe?

Tony Blair: Certainly. The very reason why we wish to increase health spending is to bring our health care system up to the best in Europe. That is precisely what we want to do, and that is the purpose of the money that we are spending at the moment on more doctors and more nurses, on the new hospital programme, on cancer treatment and on cardiac treatment, and elsewhere. Of course, there are still big problems to overcome, but we believe that the combination of investment, plus reform, will work. Now, I repeat that we are in favour of spending that additional money in the national health serviceis the right hon. Gentleman?

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister therefore believes that he will achieve those standards. So perhaps he would like to comment on the fact that, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, more than 8 per cent. is already being spent, yet Scotland has the lowest survival rate of breast cancer and lung cancer of any major European country. In Wales, the number of people waiting for out-patient treatment has doubled and those waiting more than three months for treatment has quadrupled. In Northern Ireland, the Labour party's sister party, the SDLP said yesterday:
	We spend a higher amount than the Irish Republic or anywhere in England. However, our waiting lists are far the worst of any UK region and are worsening all the time.
	Does that not show that his and his Chancellor's figure of 8 per cent. is vacuous and that he made it up as he went along, and does it not show that, because they have abandoned health service reform, it is not just about money? The reality is that he does not have a clue and he does not have a cure for the health service.

Tony Blair: Of course, it is true that the health service needs reform as well, which is precisely why we are reforming it by making sure, for example, that 75 per cent. of the budget will be devolved to the local primary care trusts. We are reforming it in the new contracts for doctors, nurses and consultants. We are reforming it in the new system of inspection and accountability, and in the national service frameworks, but, of course, it also needs money. That is absolutely true, and we know from the right hon. Gentleman's article in The Daily Telegraph that putting money into the
	NHS is like pouring water into a colander.
	Let me come to the right hon. Gentleman's own health authority for a moment, and say what that money has done there. If he says that it is all wasted, let me tell the House what has happened in his own health authority: a 25 per cent. reduction in in-patient waiting lists; 1.8 million to modernise the accident and emergency wards at Whipps Cross and King George; 1.8 million to expand critical care services; 205,000 so that local hospitals can introduce booked-admissions systems; and 149,000 earmarked funding for heart disease services. Now, all that money has improved health care services in his own health authority. What part of that money does he think is like pouring water into a colander? [Interruption.]

Khalid Mahmood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in condemning the recent escalation of violence on both sides in the middle east. What diplomatic pressure is the United Kingdom Government putting on the Israeli Government to return to the peace process, to de-escalate the cycle of terror in the region?

Tony Blair: What is important is that pressure is put on both sides to return to the peace process. There is a very dangerous situation in the middle east in which Israel is faced with suicide bomb attacks against its citizens, which is an outrage and must cease, and the Palestinian Authority and people within its area are obviously living in very difficult conditions.
	My view remains that the initial security steps have to be taken as soon as possible, and then the peace process has to be relaunched, based on two points of principle: the first is Israel's existence, secure and confident in its own borders, and accepted by the whole of the Arab world, and the second is the need for a viable Palestinian state. If people accepted those two fixed points of principle, we would have a chance of getting a peace process that worked. That is not only in the interests of the outside world; it is most profoundly in the interests of the citizens of Israel and the people living within the Palestinian Authority area.

Charles Kennedy: May I fully associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the appropriate expressions of condolence which have been extended, by all parties now, to the family of the late Sir Ray Powell? I reassure the House that if ever there was a case of cash for questions, I should be sending an invoice to the leader of the Conservative party.
	In view of the shocking news this morning about 30,000 proposed job losses for postal workers over the next 18 months, and the revelation that the unions say they were not consulted and had no advance warning, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government were consulted, and if so, what view did they take?

Tony Blair: No, it is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the company and the unions. We gave the commercial freedom to the Post Office that people wished for. The Post Office faces an extremely challenging and difficult time, and of course I would regret any job losses in the postal sector. However, it is important that the matter is dealt with by the company and the unions, taking account of the fact that there will need to be big changes in postal services over the next few years.

Charles Kennedy: There will be rightful dismay in the country that 30,000 job losses are not considered a matter even for consultation with the Government. That is unbelievable. What assurances can the Prime Minister give in light of those tens of thousands of job losses that postal services will be maintained, in rural as well as urban Britain, on an equitable and equal basis into the future?

Tony Blair: Of course it is our responsibility to make sure that postal services are maintained in the rural parts of the country, and that is precisely what we will do. I did not say that the Government did not regret any job losses in the industry; I said specifically that we do. However, I also said that the Post Office faces very challenging times, and these are matters to be worked out between the company and the unions.
	If the position of the Liberal Democrats is that they would intervene, say that there should be no job losses and give an undertaking that they would give whatever amounts of public money were necessary to achieve that, I would be interested to hear that from them, but I doubt it very much. If I may say so, it is a classic example of what someone once said about the Liberal Democrats:
	It is easy for the third party in British politics to make promises which they know they will never be in Government to implement and be responsible for.
	That was one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden).

Claire Ward: I welcome the Government's decision to extend the pub and club licensing hours over the new year, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in those very pubs and clubs many women will become victims of the date-rape drug, GHB? May I encourage support for the police campaign to make sure that people are aware of the potential for drinks to be spiked? Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Home Secretary the need to ban the drug at the earliest opportunity?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is rightshe makes a very good point. The Government have accepted a recommendation made by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that GHB be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and we strongly support the police campaign. She is right to draw attention to the dangers: we are working in conjunction with the police to draw public attention to those dangers and to protect the public from them.

Peter Duncan: Following today's further extraordinary and damning suggestions, does the Prime Minister retain full confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths)?

Tony Blair: I do, yes. Any allegations made should be investigated by the appropriate authorities; they are being investigated and I believe that those authorities will make their decisions shortly.

Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome the additional extended cost of living allowances awarded last week to nurses in Harlow and throughout Essex; they will make a real difference to recruitment and retention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to continue to get such improvements, we need extra public investment? In that respect, will he reject out of hand the views of those who advocate private health insurance? Is that not the system used in America, where 40 million people are denied access to the hospitals they need? Does not the Conservatives' support for such a system demonstrate more clearly than anything else that they have learned nothing from two crushing general election defeats?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right. Although problems persist in the recruitment of nurses, consultants and doctors, over the past few years more than 20,000 extra nurses have been recruited to the national health service, as well as almost 7,000 doctors and consultants. It is important that we keep the programme going. The reason that we are able to attract more nurses is the financial help we are giving. The scheme to which he refers has been extended to north and south Essex, and it is extremely important that we take such measures.
	The problem with the Conservatives' proposals is that simply putting money into private medical insurance is not an answerpeople are already entitled to take out private medical insurance. What the Conservatives really want is to force people to take out such insurance, which will result in many people not getting the treatment they need.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether train delays due to track and signals failures have gone up or down since he pushed Railtrack into administration?

Tony Blair: My understanding is that figures will be published within the next few days, but those figures are for April to October and so cover only a small part of the period since the company went into administration. The figures for October onwards will be published early next year. However, as I understand it the problems with train delays began in September, before the company went into administration.

Iain Duncan Smith: The reality is that all the figures from the companies and Railtrack show that train delays have jumped by 45 per cent. since the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions put the company into administration. The Prime Minister mentions one set of figures, but is it not a fact that the Government have decided not to publish any figures during the winter months but to wait until spring next year? Is his Transport Secretary looking for another good place to bury bad news?

Tony Blair: No, that is not the case. The reason the company had to go into administration is that it simply could not carry on as it had been, asking for billions of pounds in public subsidy and not providing a decent service to rail users. It is right that the company goes into administration, that it is sorted out and put on a new basis for the future that will allow it, in time, to deliver a better service to rail users. The idea that the problem of the railways started with administration is false: the problem started with probably the most botched privatisation in the history of privatisations.

Iain Duncan Smith: There he goes againmore blame for everyone elsethe same old story. The Prime Minister spent six months with his Transport Secretary finding ways to take over the railways and he has done it. Only a few weeks ago, he was blaming Railtrack's management, saying that the process would cut the expenditure that they were wasting, yet he is now to spend 1 million on a chief executive for Railtrack, having only just got rid of the last one for a third of a million pounds. It is absolutely ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman will get no more investment because none of the private companies will invest any money in his railways, which his Deputy Prime Minister botched up along with his Transport Secretary.
	Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister and his Deputy Prime Minister clearly wanted a train set for Christmas? Now they have one they cannot run it. The reality for the public is that there will be delays, cancellations and a winter of discontent.

Tony Blair: Again, I have gently to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the problemsI think that most people accept thiswith the railways were twofold. First, there was under-investment over a long period. Secondly, rail privatisation ended up with a fragmented system that was unsustainable.
	When we put Railtrack into administration, it was literally asking uswith great respect, this is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not deal withfor billions of pounds of extra public money. We believe that that system could not continue. We must ensure that public money that is put into the railways goes to improve the railways. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the salary of the new chief executive. The biggest difference between us on the funding of the railways is that the right hon. Gentleman has given a commitment that if he were in office he would be bailing out all the Railtrack shareholders. That would mean 1 billion paid out to them, but not to improve the railways.
	With the greatest respect, the right hon. Gentleman and his party were the people who started the problems in the railways as a result of privatisation. It will need time and investment to sort them out. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that no one believes that the Conservative party would do it.

Falkirk Wheel

Eric Joyce: Whether he intends to visit the Falkirk wheel.

Tony Blair: I have no immediate plans to do somy apologies. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear about the Falkirk wheel.

Tony Blair: I have now found the right place, Mr. Speaker.
	I understand that this innovative project in Falkirk will be officially opened next year by Her Majesty the Queen. However, at present I have no immediate plans to visit it.

Eric Joyce: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his recognition of the project? Does he recognise that the full economic benefit of it will be felt in central Scotland only if the related agencies that are helping British Waterways identify ways of generating real jobs along the canal and at the wheel site over the coming years?

Tony Blair: As a result of the partnership between the public and private sectors, the millennium link will improve enormously the quality of services in the local area. More than thatmy hon. Friend is rightit will bring jobs into the area as well. That is yet another example of how, with some help with money from the public sector or the lottery, plus the involvement of the private sector, we can provide jobs and decent investment for the future.

Engagements

Colin Breed: Does the Prime Minister consider it fairer to raise national insurance contributions or to increase income tax properly to fund the national health service?

Tony Blair: Decisions on how to fund the NHS will be made in the Budget, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We have commitments not to raise the basic or higher rates of income tax. I know that that is not the view of the Liberal Democrats, who want a top rate of tax of, I think, 50 per cent. I believe that the money that we have put into the NHS over the past few years exceeds enormously any sum that was ever asked for by the Liberal Democrats. We can always be sure that no matter how much money we put in, no matter how generous my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is and no matter what the comprehensive spending review delivers for the health service, one group of peoplethe Liberal Democratswill tell us that it is not enough.

Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend will have seen the chief medical officer's report on the dangers of alcohol misuse and the increased incidence of death from cirrhosis. While, of course, substantial sums have been invested in practical measures on preventive health care, does that not highlight the need for a widespread public awareness campaign on the dangers of alcohol misuse, especially in relation to binge drinking and young people?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the dangers of substance abuse are not limited to drugs. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem and it is for that reason that the Government are increasing substantially the amount of money going into education and awareness, particularly among young people, of the dangers, not merely of drug abuse but alcohol abuse as well. I therefore entirely support what he said.

David Heathcoat-Amory: This weekend, the Prime Minister will sign up to the European arrest warrant at the European summit. Is he aware that the final proposals have not been debated by the House because the English text was not available to the Select Committee on European Scrutiny this week? Is he aware that under the text as reported, a British citizen can be deported to another EU state for an offence that is not a crime in this country; that the normal protections against wrongful arrest will be denied him or her; and that, once deported, they can face charges in the receiving state of any other nature whatsoever?

Tony Blair: I understand that it is being debated. Of course, there will be many opportunities to debate it. [Hon. Members: When?] There will be many opportunities, not least in the Extradition Bill. So there will be many opportunities to debate that. On the substance of the issue, however, I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is manifestly in this country's interest to have a fast-track procedure for extraditing people to this country from other European countries. Of course, we already have a European convention on extradition, but this will simplify the procedure enormously and it is in our interests. At the moment, some extradition cases allow organised criminals in particular to get away with stringing out proceedings for long periods. I may be wrong, but I regret to say that there is one problem with the proposal for a large part of the Conservative party; it has got the word Europe in it.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Harry Potter movie has now broken all box office records in the United Kingdom and the United States? Does he agree that the renaissance of the British film industry is a great compliment, both to those who work in it and to his cultural and fiscal policy since coming to office?

Tony Blair: I can tell my right hon. Friend that no one has done more to promote the interests of the British film industry than he has, over a long period. Partly as a result of his work, the Chancellor introduced fiscal measures that have released about 100 million for the British film industry. One reason for it being a success story today is the policies that we have pursued, which he did so much to promote.

Paul Beresford: Prime Minister, your Government's local government White Paper announces the intention to remove the municipal trading ban on local authorities. Can the right hon. Gentleman justify that to the many small businesses of this country that pay taxes, business rates and VAT and will find themselves competing against local authority units that do not pay taxesin fact, they are assisted by taxes paidand will not pay business rates, will not have to make a profit and will have their overheads covered by local authorities?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If better value for money is given by public authorities, it should be open to local authorities to contract with them. Just as I disagree with the idea of privatebad; publicgood, I disagree with the position that I think the hon. Gentleman takes: publicbad; privategood. It is sensible to make sure that local authorities have the power to get the best deal for the people in their area.

Andrew Dismore: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the NHS in Hendon, where unfortunately waiting lists for hospital treatment still remain too long, in part because of the under- performance of Barnet general hospital. I welcome the increase of more than 10 per cent. in health spending for our health authority, which has just been announced for next year. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the necessary resources will be directed towards addressing the shortcomings at Barnet hospital and continuing the build-up of services at Edgware community hospital, which was closed by the Tories and re-opened under Labour?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend that waiting lists still remain too high. Although waiting lists are down in his area, there are still people waiting too long. As a result of the extra money, we are able to reduce waiting lists. We can do more as that extra investment goes in, matched by reform. It is now true that about 70 per cent. of those who get their operation on the NHS get it within three months. There are still far too many people waiting longer than that, but over time, we will get that investment in, matched by reform. My hon. Friend is right that the central difficulty for the Conservative party, and the difference between us, is that we believe in that money going in, and they would take it out.

Nick Gibb: The Prime Minister's reforms to the ministerial code are very welcome. Important policy issues should be announced and debated in the House. Does he accept that that reform, and those proposed by the Leader of the House, would do little to tackle the deeply held cynicism of many voters about politics and politicians? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the root of the problem lies with us all in the House, including the Prime Minister, and that, instead of for ever changing the structure of Parliament, what we need is more forensic questioning and fuller answers, less point scoring[Interruption.] and fewer bogus statistics and ritual rants against the last Conservative Government? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are over-running now.

Tony Blair: I agree that we need more forensic questioning. To deal with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it is important to recognise that cynicism about politics does not help any party in the House. Even though there are huge disagreements over, for example, the future of the national health service, if the public were able to see the genuine debate going on between those with different views about the NHS, or between those with different views on, for example, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, or on tax and spending, and if there were greater concentration on those debates and people were able to see them happening, they would realise that despite much of what passes for news about what happens in politics, in fact political debate is alive and thriving, and long may it continue to do so. Yes, it is the responsibility of Government and Government Back Benchers to promote that; it is also the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman and his side.

Points of Order

John Whittingdale: Reference has already been made this afternoon to the fact that during a Select Committee hearing yesterday, the chief executive of Consignia announced that the Post Office intends to make up to 30,000 redundanciestwice the number that was being reported just a few weeks ago, news that comes at the worst conceivable time of year. Given that the Post Office remains wholly owned in the public sector and that Ministers have overall responsibility, have you received any indication that a Minister intends to come to the Chamber to make a statement about this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication, but I consider the matter extremely important. I hope that a Minister will come at some stage to make a statement.

Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification about today's business. I refer you to the Order Paper, where it is clear that there is an Adjournment debate on international terrorism. The front page of the Order Paper correctly points out that that debate can proceed until 10 pm. I now refer you to the programme motion that has been tabled by the Government in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. You will see that the knives for that motion fall first at 8.15 pm, in respect of amendments to parts 3, 10, 11 and 13 of the Bill, and that there is a further knife at 9.30 pm concerning amendments to part 4.
	Clearly, that is a huge abuse of the House by the Government. It is very probable that the Adjournment debate will continue until 10 pm and that there will be absolutely no debate and possibly no vote on important amendments to an important Bill that is in dispute in the House. I believe that the House has been very shabbily treated. It looks to you for advice and guidance.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that we drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that that problem could easily result from taking business on which there would be no votethe Adjournment motionbefore matters that should be put to a vote in the House? May I also remind you that, if we had been successful in those representations, the votes would have occurred in prime time and in the full glare of publicity? Instead, the debate has been tucked away in the middle of the night. Will you use your good offices to ensure that the House is given a proper opportunity to debate what are extremely important issues?

Mr. Speaker: Responsibility for the Order Paper and its shape lies with the Government and not with me. It is within the rules of the House to lay out the Order Paper in that way. What I am obliged to do as a servant of the House is to make my way through the Order Paper. That is the only advice that I can give to hon. Members at this stage.

Food Poverty (Eradication)

Alan Simpson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for abolishing food poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes.
	The origins of the Bill are to be found in the Rowntree report of 1999, which drew the attention of the House and the country to the stark reality that there are 4 million people in Britain at the moment who do not have access to a healthy diet. The reasons for that are complex. They include a combination of inadequate income, insufficient access to safe and fresh food and misinformation about nutritional standards. However, the outcomes of that misunderstanding and lethal cocktail are equally stark. In each of our constituencies, up to 5,000 people are malnourished. Those people account for four in 10 hospital admissions. One in 10 of those who are admitted are caught in what is referred to as a malnutrition carousel, in which they make their way back and forth between the national health service and home, unable to sustain themselves on a healthy diet in order to get well and stay well.
	The question is what we should do. It is clearly unacceptable for the House or the country to have a strategy that does nothing, and it is not the position of the Government to tolerate that view either. We already have a commitment as a Government to a strategy that will eliminate child poverty. As a Parliament, we have committed ourselves to a 15-year strategy that will eradicate fuel poverty. I believe that the Bill will complete the anti-poverty strategy, so that we have a coherent and comprehensive picture to address.
	The Bill is simple and comprises two basic elements. First, it places a duty on the Secretary of State to present to the House a strategy for the elimination of food poverty. Secondly, its implementation mechanism would require local government to set up its own local food authorities, which would be expected, first, to conduct an audit of food poverty as it emerges in their area; secondly, to develop a strategy for eliminating food poverty; and, thirdly, to construct local partnerships to provide the mechanisms for the strategy and for eliminating a national scandal.
	Clearly, Parliament and the Government have a duty to set out the framework for such a strategy, but the delivery mechanism must be local. It will draw on the diverse, dynamic and locality-based ideas in local communities and local government. It will go down several different paths, which I do not wish to prescribe. We may choose to try to follow the lead of the Women's Institute, which, in its sweet way, is almost the Khmer Rouge of the safe food campaign. It establishes local food markets around the country, and sets standards for food freshness and food accountability that the rest of us would do well to follow.
	We may choose to support and extend the burgeoning growth of farmers' markets, which involve local food production and accountability. We may choose to fund food co-operatives that are currently supported by several health authorities around the country. Whatever collection of ideas we pursue, we will have to consider incentives for dealing with places in almost all our cities and communities that have become food deserts where one cannot find fresh food outlets that are accessible to the food poor.
	I am tempted to suggest that, rather than offering discounts to supermarkets for zero ratings on their car parks, we should explore the possibility of allowing local authorities to offer 50 per cent. business rate reductions to food outlets where the food has been produced within 50 miles of the urban locality.
	There are a myriad possibilities for tackling the scandal of food poverty that continues to blight the social landscape of this country. We may invite the local food authorities that local authorities establish to negotiate safe food contracts between the hinterland of food producers in the agricultural communities that surround urban outlets and the urban concentrations of food consumers.
	More than a century ago, local government greatly transformed the quality of life of working people by setting standards for sanitation and food hygiene. They genuinely improved the life and health of working people throughout the land. We now need a different vision that revisits the issue and applies to the challenges of the 21st century.
	Throughout the country, swathes of the public are establishing their agendas for food safety, food accountability, food security and food sustainability. The challenge to Parliament is whether we can catch up with the public. One of the exciting aspects of the food justice campaign that the Bill launches is that it crosses party boundaries. In many respects, the formal party political agenda has failed to grasp a political challenge that the public have set for Parliament and every party that is represented in it.
	I doubt whether the Bill will make its way into law in this Parliament, but I am certain that, as with the warm homes campaign to end fuel poverty, in five years' time, the House will pass primary legislation to eliminate food poverty from Britain. I am therefore proud to present the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will support it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Drew, Tom Brake, Dr. Howard Stoate, Peter Bottomley, Ms Diane Abbott, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. David Chaytor.

Food Poverty (Eradication)

Mr. Alan Simpson accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for abolishing food poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 69].

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (Programme No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 19th November:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1.(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at midnight.
	(2) Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Lords amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments to Parts 3, 10, 11 and 13 8.15 p.m. 
			 Amendments to Part 4 9.30 p.m. 
			 Amendments to Part 5 10.45 p.m. 
			 Amendments to Part 14 11.30 p.m. 
			 Remaining amendments midnight 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	2.(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement[Mr. Ainger.]
	The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 195.

Question accordingly agreed to.

International Terrorism

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Jack Straw: First, let me apologise for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I shall be attending and reading a lesson at the parliamentary carol service in St Margaret's Westminster at that time.
	Yesterday United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I led a simple ceremony in Downing street in memory of those who lost their lives on 11 September. At 1.46 pm Greenwich mean time, 8.46 am eastern standard time, we stood in silence to mark the moment three months earlier when the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Centre in New York. Then a brass band from the American school in London played both our national anthems.
	Immediately afterwards I remarked to William Farish, the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, that the ceremony had been a striking combination of sorrow and hopesad, yet uplifting at the same time. There were sadness and grief at the terrible loss of life on 11 September, and hope because of what has been achieved since then and what can now realistically be achieved in the futurehope that springs from recognition that the military action has worked and, above all, recognition that in turn it has liberated the spirit and the future of the Afghan people, oppressed for so long by the totalitarian intolerance of the Taliban regime.
	The loss of nearly 4,000 lives on 11 September resulted from the decision of the al-Qaeda networks to launch those attacks. The loss of life in Afghanistan in the weeks that followed resulted from decisions of the Taliban regime to go on protecting the terrorists in defiance of the will of the international community. At each stage, faced with real choices, the al-Qaeda networks and the Taliban protecting them chose the path of evil and destruction.
	The United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the international coalition have faced their own choices. Following 11 September we could have chosen to do nothing and by our inaction invited further attacks. Instead we took the tough decision to embark on a military campaign. I respect the view of those who disagreed with that choice but I hope that they may in turn respect the fact that the choice of military action as part of an overall diplomatic and humanitarian strategy was right, and that the campaign on all its frontsmilitary, diplomatic and humanitarianhas been vindicated by events.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: I will in a second.
	The military coalition is well on the way to achieving the objectives of the campaign. The Taliban protectors of the terrorist networks have been driven out of Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat and now even Kandahar. The al-Qaeda training camps have been destroyed. The Taliban regime became a major obstacle to getting humanitarian relief through. Now that their grip on most of the country has gone, many more aid convoys are reaching the people who need them.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Foreign Secretary able to give an estimate of the number of casualties in the military campaign in Afghanistan? What measures does he propose be undertaken to investigate the many human rights abuses on all sides in Afghanistan, in particular the execution of a large number of prisoners when the Northern Alliance took one of the Taliban divisions hostage?

Jack Straw: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to say, in the spirit of mutual respect, that he recognised that some of his predictions, which he made with such certainty in the autumn, had not turned out to be correct. I look forward to that. We all have to learn lessons from what has happened.
	I am happy to put this on the record. I believe that the military action was right but I did not believe that it would be over as quickly as it has been and with such relatively small loss of life. In time, casualty figures will emerge and we will put them on the record, but my hon. Friend has to face the fact that, had the military action not taken place, the Taliban would have maintained their stranglehold on Afghanistan, with the most outrageous and appalling abuse of civil and human rights we have ever seen.
	So far we have seen no evidenceagain, my hon. Friend speaks with a certainty that I do not find is possible in these circumstancesof executions of the type that he has described. When I was asked about that on the radio on 30 November, I said that if different evidence emerged we would consider it. We always abide by our obligations in international law.

David Winnick: Of course human rights should always be respected and one hopes that they will be, but does my right hon. Friend recall one or two people here and elsewhere saying that if military action were taken, the whole Islamic world would rise against us? That does not seem to have happened. Have we not seen evidence with our own eyes on television that a large majority of people in Afghanistan welcome the liberation from clerical fascism and totalitarianism? This has been one of the most justified military actions since 1945.

Jack Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view entirely. The record speaks for itself. I am not going to be disobliging. As I say, I respect those who took a different view, but I hope that out of respect for the House they will look at the record of what they said and think about whether the certainty that they showedfor example, they said that the whole of the Islamic world would be up in armswas correct.

Michael Spicer: In view of what the Foreign Secretary is saying, does he support the American policy of fighting terrorism around the world wherever it exists?

Jack Straw: That is a simplification of the American policy. I certainly support the policy of the United Nations of pursuing terrorism by all appropriate means, wherever it is, and I shall come to that matter in due course.

Several hon. Members: rose

Jack Straw: This is a short debate and I apologise if I do not take all the interventions that I normally would.
	People also raised the issue of whether people would starve in Afghanistan if the military action went ahead. Well, since 11 September, the World Food Programme has brought 70,000 tonnes of food into the country. Never at any point did the humanitarian effort falter. At present, the aid agencies and the international community are getting four times as much food into Afghanistan each day as they were at the beginning of October.
	On the diplomatic front, we saw last week perhaps the most astonishing success of all. Exceeding all expectations, the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, some of whom have fought each other at different times in the last 20 years, sat down together in Bonn and thrashed out an agreement which puts Afghanistan back on the path to peace. In recording that, I wish to express my gratitude to the UN Secretary- General, Kofi Annan, and to his Special Representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi's patience, insight and skill were a critical factor in bringing the negotiations to that remarkable conclusion. I also pay tribute to the Afghan participants. I am also glad that we in the UK were able to play an active part in the process, through diplomats Robert Cooper, Paul Bergne, Stephen Evans, Andrew Tesoriere and many others, and through the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.
	Many of us expected that the next step after Bonn would be for the talks to reconvene in Kabul. Instead, it is an interim Afghan authority that will convene in Kabul on 22 December. The new Administration will include three women: a clear sign that the new Afghanistan is different from life under the Taliban. Like everything else in the agreement, that is the beginning of a process of returning Afghanistan to normality. Those who take the view that we should not have embarked on the military strategy, in the context of the overall strategy, need to reflect on the fact that had it not taken place women, in particular, would have continued to be oppressed in what was a benighted country.

George Galloway: Is not my right hon. Friend's triumphalism a little premature, if not provocative? After all, the vindication he speaks of will be seen only if we are less likely in the future to be attacked by violent terrorists than before the action began. At the very least, it is too soon to say that that is true, given thataccording to General Powellal-Qaeda are in 50 countries around the world, not all in Tora Bora being bombed. On the subject of the Muslim world, will my right hon. Friend accept that more people hate us more intensely today than they did before we embarked on that military action?

Jack Straw: On the second point, I emphatically disagree with my hon. Friend. That is not the message that I receive from my Muslim friends, of whom I have many in this country and abroad. On his first point, I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would not be a bad idea if he examined the beam in his own eye before he started trying to pick out the mote in mine. If he wants an example of a speech that was not correct, he should perhaps examine what he told the House a few weeks ago. He said:
	Why do I say that the war is going so badly?
	He explained why and then continued:
	the course of action on which we are embarked and in which I predict we will still be involvedperhaps next year at this timewith casualties beyond imagination risks becoming the very third world war that the bin Laden fanatics set out to achieve with their attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September.[Official Report, 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1113-4.]

George Galloway: rose

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend can make his own speech in his own time, but I wish to make progress. His earlier speech is on the record.
	The House can be proud of this country's role in the liberation of the Afghan people, and we can be especially proud of the courage of our troops at Bagram airfield in securing the air base and making it safe for the United Nations and other diplomatic and humanitarian missions. Not least, our deployment at Bagram has made it possible for delegates to fly to the talks in Bonn, and we were the first country to establish a diplomatic presence in Kabul.
	Alongside that, however, there has always been the imperative on the international community to deliver a second liberation to free the Afghan people from the other scourges that have beset them for decadesfear, hunger, poverty and war.
	There are several immediate and urgent tasks. First, there is the need to ensure that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are completely eliminated. Secondly, there is the immediate humanitarian emergency. Thirdly, there is the issue of the multinational force requested by the parties at Bonn to provide security in Kabul and the surrounding areas for the nascent political community, and for the institutions of that fledgling state.
	We have always said that we stand ready to provide troops. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have indicated, in principle, a willingness to play a leading role in any UN mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan. No formal decisions have yet been taken.
	These are merely the most pressing needs of the new Afghan state, but there are many other problems that cannot be resolved quickly. The country has known little but war, bloodshed and chaos for a generation. A quarter of all children do not make it to their fifth birthday, a third are orphans, and half are malnourished. The international community has let Afghanistan down in the past. We are not going to turn our backs on the Afghan people again.
	The Bonn agreement set out a route map to a better future. We have to ensure that all the parties involved stay on the route and follow the map. There will be an emergency Loya Jirgah within six months, from which a broad-based traditional administration will emerge. Eighteen months after that, there will be a full Loya Jirgah to agree a new constitution, under which free and fair elections will be held for a fully representative government.
	We must also ensure that donor countries provide good measures of support, and that the tangible support that is provided is conditional on progress being made in Afghanistan.
	The Afghan Support Group, which brings together all the major donors, has met in Berlin to discuss practical ways of assisting the interim administration. Meetings of donors and other interested parties in Brussels later this month, and next month in Tokyo, will lead to firm pledges of funds. We have to get reconstruction work under way quickly to produce an early peace dividend.
	I want to pay particular tribute to the central role that the United Nations has played since the beginning of this crisis. I spoke of the ceremony yesterday to mark the fact that three months had passed since the atrocities of 11 September. Today, it is exactly three months since the UN moved so rapidly into action by passing Security Council resolution 1368. Two weeks later, it passed resolution 1373, and further resolutions were passed when I attended the Security Council and the General Assembly between 10 and 14 November.

Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: I am sorry, but I want to make progress.
	Important as the military, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan are to the fight against international terrorism, their successful completion alone will not remove the scourge of terrorism as a force in international affairs. We therefore have to do all that we can to promote peace. That includes fostering the middle east peace process, which represents the only way in which Palestinian grievances can be addressed, and Israel's security guaranteed.
	Forlorn though the hopes may be, we have to encourage both parties in that terrible conflict to go back, in appropriate circumstances, to the negotiating table.
	We also have to step up international measures to combat terrorism. We have to work for universal acceptance of the principle that violence directed against civilians for political ends is never justified. We do not condone acts of terrorism carried out under the guise of fighting for freedom. Although we are prepared to talk to states that do not endorse this principle, our scope for active co-operation with them is severely limited.
	We have to go on providing development and humanitarian assistance, and making the case for effective action to combat poverty, oppression, conflict, criminality and every malign force that excludes our fellow human beings from the benefits of a globalised world.
	We should not delude ourselves that the defeat of al-Qaeda and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan spells the end of the international terrorist threat, or of the fight against it. We, the United States Administration and the international community have made it clear from the beginning that it will take a long time to remove the threat. However, we should take heart from the successes of the last few weeks.
	We have shown that the determined will of the international community can defeat the evil that seeks to destroy us and that destroyed the lives of so many people on 11 September. We have shown that action to enforce universal values is a powerful force for good. Alongside the physical rebuilding of Afghanistan, we have to encourage and, above all, work for, the spiritual regeneration of that country. We have shown that we have not forgotten 11 September, and we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never happen again. 4.15 pm

Michael Ancram: Since the House last met to discuss the war on terrorism, much progress has been made and Conservative Members welcome the success that has been achieved in recent weeks. It is a vindication of the strategy pursued by the international coalition, with the United States at its head. It is only the beginning, however, and we must never lose sight of the fact that the fight to eradicate terrorism wherever it is to be found will be a long, hard and unrelenting one. That fight did not start in Afghanistan and it will not end there. We must never allow ourselves to be tempted into believing that once the Afghan phase is over, our job is done.
	In the House on 16 October, I outlined what I believed that our objectives should be. The first was to bring Osama bin Laden to book and to destroy his al-Qaeda organisation. The second was to enable the people of Afghanistan to regain their rights and to live in peace, not least by a determined effort to free them from the threat of famine that confronts so many of them. The third was the longer-term but equally essential aim of the eradication of international terrorism and the very real threats implicit in it. I believe that those objectives remain valid.
	Achieving those objectives was central to justifying the international involvement of the unique and remarkable international coalition that has been so successfully sustained. These agile partnerships, as President Bush has described them, have proved very effective, as, indeed, has the flexible approach that the European Union has adopted to the crisisa flexibility that Conservative Members warmly welcome and endorse.

Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman's third objective was the eradiation of international terrorism. Will he clarify whether that, in his view, means bombing countries other than Afghanistan? If it does not mean that, what does the eradication of international terrorism mean?

Michael Ancram: There would be many different ways in which we would seek to eradicate international terrorism, depending on the circumstances. It would be wrong to rule anything in or to rule anything out.
	I hope that the conversion to a flexible Europe that I mentioned will be sustained by the Foreign Secretary in the weeks ahead. It has also been a salutary experience to work with a coalition in which Russia has co-operated so effectively with the United States and Europe. I hope that we will be able to build on that growing understanding.
	Intrinsic to our prime objective was the early removal of the Taliban, which has almost been done now. Over the past few days, in their remaining erstwhile stronghold of Kandahar, the prospective surrender of the Taliban forces has been brokered by the man who is to be Afghanistan's interim Prime Minister, Hamid Karzai. Now the net is inexorably closing in on bin Laden and his al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The latest reports suggest that the battle among the caves at Tora Bora is reaching a conclusion.
	The professionalism of our armed forces, American and British, working with and alongside the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, will help to ensure either that bin Laden is brought to justice or that justice is brought to bin Laden. I salute the courage and skill of our service personnel who have been in one way or another involved in ensuring the effectiveness of this campaign.
	The Afghan phase of the battle against terrorism is not yet complete and there must be no let-up, no premature satisfaction and certainly no complacency until it is done. Nevertheless, the work of helping to establish a representative Government in Kabul must now be pursued with vigour. That second objective of which I spoke is urgent if the vacuum left by the collapse of the Taliban regime is not to be filled with further dissension and unrest.
	In Bonn last week, a major piece in the jigsaw of our second objective fell into place when the major Afghan factions agreed on a transitional Government to run the country. On 22 December, when the interim Government come in, Afghanistan will start on a new path. It is important that the agreement was made by the people of Afghanistan, for the people of Afghanistan. The Opposition welcome that progress and I, too, pay special tribute to Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations. We wish him success in his continuing diplomatic efforts.
	Understandably, there is now a tremendous sense of hope for the future, but Afghanistan has only just begun on the path towards exorcising the demons of its recent past. The next stage in that process is for the transitional Government to prove themselves genuinely representative of the whole of Afghanistan and resolute in ensuring that Afghanistan will never again be used as a haven for international terrorism.
	There has been some surprise and concern at the way that announcements have been made over the past few days about the further deployment of British troops in AfghanistanI hope that the Foreign Secretary will give me his full attention at this pointthrough leaks in newspapers[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence suggests that there has been no announcement, but that is what I am complaining about.
	There have been leaks in newspapers, hints have been givennot least by the right hon. Gentlemanin television interviews, and announcements have been made in other countries. As Mr. Speaker made clear yesterday, the House should be told first, and should be told fully, what is intended. The result is that we have grave misgivings about what is being mooted. We need answers to many questions.

Jack Straw: I acceptas I have always donethe importance of making announcements to the House. However, in defence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself, the only occasions on which we have dealt with that matter have been when we explained to people that no decisions have been made, and so no announcement has been made. We have made a statement of the obvious, which I repeated in my speech: we stand ready in appropriate circumstances to take a leading role in that force, but no decisions have been made. That remains the case. Once the decisions have been taken, they will be made known to the House.

Michael Ancram: I hear what the Foreign Secretary says, but I read the front pages of all the national newspapers on Sunday and Monday. I also heard what the US Secretary of State said in Paris yesterday before he arrived in this country. I find it hard to accept that there has merely been a declaration in principle and that there is no intention behind it.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister was reported speaking, outside the Houseagainof British troops being involved in, as the Foreign Secretary correctly quoted,
	a UN mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan.
	We need to know precisely what that means. What would be the limits to the time and extent of any involvement? What would be the remit of any such engagement? In the past, we have expressed reservations about being involved in what has been described as nation building, especially as we have been protagonists in the campaign so far. Do the Government still share our reservations about that?

Patrick Mercer: Can some light be shed on the warning orders that are currently thrashing around in the joint rapid reaction force and the headquarters of 1 Armoured Division? Is that merely contingency planning?

Michael Ancram: As the Secretary of State for Defence has heard my hon. Friend's very valid question, I hope that he will be able to answer it at the end of the debate.
	I have further questions to which I hope to receive an answer. What would be the involvement of the United States in the United Nations mandated force? Who is envisaged as commanding the force? UN officials recently expressed the need to leave a light footprint, but how would the Government define that? Can they assure the House that any involvement would be time-limited, would not lead to mission creep and would not suck our armed forces into a long-term policing role from which it would be difficult to extricate ourselves?
	I should also like the Government to enlarge on the speech made on Monday by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, in which he referred to the choices facing the country and the coalition in relation to the next phase. What were the national interests to which he alluded in contrast to altruism? What are the differences of emphasis between the United Kingdom and the United States at which he hinted? Do the Government think that the next phase involves a straight choice between continued involvement in Afghanistan or supporting the United States in the wider fight against terrorism? Or can we do both? What warning was he seeking to give when he talked about trapping
	our hands in the mangle of Afghanistan in order to facilitate the political process?
	Those crucial matters are clouded at the moment, and the House should be told.

Mike Gapes: Am I right to conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Conservative party is prepared to support only a very short, time-limited involvement of British forces and that if the situation in Afghanistan requires international involvement that includes our forces, which play a crucial role, and our country, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Conservative Members will not support such a commitment?

Michael Ancram: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's question that he is prepared to support an unlimited, untimed involvement. On behalf of the Opposition, I am seeking to get some clarity into the suggestions, hints and inferences that have been made during the past few days, because the House deserves clarity on those issues.
	Hand in hand with the diplomatic and military efforts there has been a humanitarian aid effort of unrivalled scope and dedication. That has further justified our actions. Sir Michael was certainly right about the need to address the hearts and minds of the population, and there is more to be done in that regard.
	The World Food Programme has exceeded its target of 52,000 tonnes of food entering Afghanistan every month, but concern persists about reports by certain charities that food is not reaching the most vulnerable people. There are continued reports of aid convoys being looted, although security is said to be improving. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who would normally be in her place, is in Pakistan, visiting a land mine charity in Peshawar and attempting to discover whether food in Afghanistan is reaching those who need it, and we all look forward to hearing her report. On a positive note, Afghan refugees are slowly returning home. More than 120,000 refugees have returned to Afghanistan since November, and that is to be welcomed.
	The events of 11 September have shown that there is no weapon terrorists will not use and no life they are not prepared to take. If we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, we are all at risk. President Bush understands that. He is right to say that this is a moment to rise up and fight terror. His Administrationmany of whose members I met in Washington last weekalso understand that that is vital if we are to have security in future. Furthermore, they appreciate that they must act, and be seen to act, in an appropriate, calculated and responsible manner, and they have done that with great skill and determination. That is why they took such swift action to freeze the assets of groups supporting the Hamas terrorists who only recently took the lives of so many Israeli citizens.
	Indeed, the events of the past two weeks in Israel remind us that we still have a long way to go before the scourge of terrorism is eradicated. Fifteen people were killed in Israel by terrorism a week ago last Saturday. Twenty-five died because of terrorism the day after. What we were forced to accept from 11 September is that we cannot appease terror. The recent murders took place just as the American envoy, Anthony Zinni, was trying to negotiate a ceasefire. They have threatened stability in the region and in doing so played into bin Laden's hands.
	Of course, we look to Israel to exercise restraint and to return to the peace process and the talks table, but after recent events the pressure is especially on the Palestinians. On Monday, the European Union called on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to close down the terrorist networks of Islamic Jihad and Hamas. EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels this week said that Mr. Arafat should also publicly call for an end to the Palestinian intifada against Israel, which has continued for more than a year. We on the Conservative Benches support that, and I believe that the Palestinian Authority cannot and should not renege on its obligations.

David Winnick: rose

Michael Ancram: I shall give way for the last time, because I want to make progress.

David Winnick: I and many others deplored the terrible atrocities that occurred in Israel last week. However, is it not the case that the terror organisations that the right hon. Gentleman named are not in favour of any negotiations, hence the terror during the Israeli prime ministerial elections? Is it not vital that, at long last, Palestinians get the justice that has been denied them? Does he therefore accept the need for a viable Palestinian state to end the Israeli occupation that has been taking place since 1967? Israelis deserve justice certainly, but why not Palestinians as well?

Michael Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is always a balance to be struck in the middle east between the need for a just settlement for the Palestinians and the security of the state of Israel, and that, in the end, that can only be negotiated. We know that George Mitchell made proposals for the resumption of talks, and I look to the implementation of their requirements so that talks can resume. That is urgently needed.
	The international campaign against terrorism must go far wider. We should no longer be prepared to tolerate Governments who themselves tolerate or sponsor terrorist activities. That goes for Afghanistan, but it must go too for other countries that we know, and can show, are involved in international terrorism. President Bush was right yesterday to set down a very clear and stark warning to such countries. When those states are unwilling to take effective action against terrorism, they must be prepared to face a determined response from the wider international community, and I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to be at the forefront of that response.
	There are further clear phases of the campaign against international terrorism to be pursued once the immediate fight in Afghanistan is over. The next immediate phase must be the continued pursuit and eradication of al-Qaeda wherever it still flourishes. First, the terrorists must be pursued to wherever they have fled. They cannot be allowed to establish new bases and boltholes. Secondly, wherever there is the potential for them to establish a new command and control structure, under a new leadership, that must be nipped in the bud.
	Thirdly, where there are al-Qaeda cells independently capable of carrying out international terrorist acts, they must be ruthlessly hunted down and eradicated, as must any other terrorist organisations that can and might act as their surrogates. It would be a travesty to draw a line at Afghanistan, only to see the monster that is al-Qaeda regroup and re-establish itself. Let me make it clear that where there is evidence of such continuing terrorism, or the threat of it, Conservative Members will support whatever action is necessary to deal with it. But the fight against terrorism cannot end there either.
	We must look at those countries who themselves pose a terrorist threatrogue states who not only sponsor and encourage terrorism but carry the threat themselves. The further phase must be to bring appropriate pressure to bear on them to end their terrorist threat. When President Bush says that there can be no further justification for the continuing Iraqi failure to abide by the Gulf war ceasefire obligations to allow United Nations inspectors back into the country to monitor its weapons of mass destruction, we support him. The evidence suggests that Iraq has used the three years since UNSCOM was banished to build up its arsenal.
	As President Bush again made clear yesterday, the threat that Iraq poses is not one to which a blind eye can be turned. To do so would be to entrench the threat and merely to postpone the need to deal with it. Iraq, by whatever appropriate means, must be brought to mend its ways. It is to be hoped that the example of Afghanistan will bring helpful pressure to bear on Iraq, if only as an indication that the international community will no longer tolerate rogue Governments who cultivate international terrorism. There are many means by which pressure could be brought to bear. It is not necessary for the moment to speculate on what action would be appropriate or where, but it is necessary to demonstrate the resolve of the coalition to deal with terrorism or the threat of it, wherever it occurs. Again, where the evidence justifies it, we on these Benches will support whatever action is appropriate and necessary to close down that element of international terrorism. I hope and believe that the Government will do the same.
	I hope that today the Government will take the opportunity to restate their determination, in the words of the Prime Minister,
	to take . . . what action we can against . . . terrorism in all its forms.-[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 966.]
	I hope too that the Foreign Secretary will reiterate the remarks that he is reported to have made to the Select Committee on 5 December, when he confirmed that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a considerable threat to international security. He is reported as saying:
	we are very concerned about Iraq's development of these weapons and believe action must be taken.
	To him I say that we support that view.

George Galloway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ancram: I shall not give way again because I want to finish.
	This is a campaign that must be won. We must never forget that it is a campaign about peace and the threat that international terrorism poses to peace. The fight for peace and for freedom from terror can never be qualified or restrained. It cannot be pursued half-heartedly. That is why we Conservatives wholeheartedly support the fight and support the Government and the United States in their pursuit of it.
	As we in Britain know only too well, terrorism threatens us all. We have to pursue it relentlessly and without compromise wherever it occurs. We must not let up until the battle against it is won. The House should know that there is a long way to go, but we Conservatives are ready and prepared to see it through.

Jimmy Hood: First, I pay my respects to our colleague Sir Ray Powell, who died this weekend, and send my sympathies to his family. As one who knew Ray throughout my 14 years as a Member of Parliament, I have many happy memories and many stories to tell in after-dinner speeches for the rest of my life. I send my best wishes to his family.
	We all know where we were on 11 September. I was 30,000 ft up in the air flying into London Gatwick when the terrible atrocity occurred. As I walked off the flight, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who was returning with me from Gibraltar, tapped me on the shoulder and told me that he had just received a teletext message that an aircraft had flown into the World Trade Centre. It was horrific news, but we thought that a terrible accident had occurred. However, as I walked into the airport lounge on my way to catch my connecting flight to Scotland, I saw the full horror of the events.
	That is something that lives with us all, and none of us can adequately describe it. I hear pundits, commentators and colleagues saying that we should never forget 11 September, but it is impossible for us to forget it. In my local constituency newsletter, I commented that life would never be the same after 11 September. I am sure that everyone agrees.
	Are we for war, or are we against war? Surely we are all against war. To every inch of my being, I am against war. I think that it was James Connolly who said that the working man is at both ends of the bayonet. That is the view of a pacifist and a great socialist, but he was speaking at a time when wars were fought on the battlefield; the war against international terrorism is one that no one could ever have contemplated. It will be difficult for us to come to terms with the horror of it.
	I have to say to many of my dear and good Friends who are opposed to the action that has been taken that, although I have regard for their genuine views, while disagreeing with them, only one thing would have been worse than taking action, and that is not taking action. We should reflect. We were worried that there would be a knee-jerk reaction from America, with military action being conducted unilaterally. We were all pleasedsome of us were surprisedwhen the involvement and leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led to the forming of a coalition and an understanding of what we were facing. None of us understood the seriousness of the threat. The consequences of not defeating those who perpetrated such a terrible act are too horrific to contemplate.
	My constituency is in the west of Scotland. It is a rural area. There is not a large Muslim communitythe Asian and Muslim community is about 5 per cent. or less of the entire community. Much has been said about Muslim communities. My experience in meeting, living with and representing Muslim families has been wonderful.
	I hear that there is a debate that stems from something that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is alleged to have said about teaching immigrant families English. There is nothing more wonderful than to be in the west of Scotland and to hear a Pakistani child speaking in broad Scots. Please believe me. That is perfect English in a broad Scots accent.
	We should not lecture Muslim families on how they should bring up their children. I have never met a more respectful, polite and conscientious group of people. That is my experience of Muslim communities, wherever I have met them. We should talk more about that. We have taken it for granted too often, and I should put that on record.
	There are issues with which I am not comfortable. None of us can say that we support 100 per cent. everything that has been happening. I have great concern about what is happening in the middle east. Israel has many friends in the House. They are on both sides of the Chamber, and they are vocal and supportive. I support the Palestinian cause for an independent state. Given our experience of the past three months, we must not ignore the middle east and say that it has nothing to do with what happened on 11 September. The evil people who perpetrated that evil terrorism were using, are using and will continue to use the lack of a settlement in the middle east.

David Winnick: That is an excuse.

Jimmy Hood: Of course it is an excuse, but it is not an excuse from our point of view. My hon. Friend and I and many other Members have argued for a peace settlement in the middle east, and it was once within our grasp.

Julian Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that there will never be lasting peace in the middle east until both Israelis and Palestinians have their own separate states. However, is he not being unrealistic? Is not the objective of those who are carrying out the suicide bombings in Israel nothing less than the destruction of Israel?

Jimmy Hood: I concede that people are perpetrating evil acts of terrorism by becoming suicide bombers and, more importantly, encouraging others to become suicide bombers. However, they are extremists who feed off the sort of response that the Israelis have made. There is no way that I could even try to justify the Israeli Government's response. I can understand their anger and the need to protect themselves against terrorism, but one cannot defeat the evil of international terrorism with state terrorism. I tell Israel and the friends of Israel who want a middle east peace settlement that we should address that issue. We should tell Prime Minister Sharon that behaving like a state terrorist is not the answer to the problem; I say that as a supporter of the present international action.

Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the balance to the reasonable point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is that Sharon is increasingly giving the impression that his intention is the destruction of the potential state of Palestine?

Jimmy Hood: That will never happen without war in the middle east. If we cannot get our minds round what happened on 11 September, believe me, a middle east war will be a lot worse. It is in everybody's interest, as well as in the interests of morality and social justice, to give the Palestinians their own state within their own lands and, along with that, to give the Israelis peace. We cannot criticise the evil of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to supposedly friendly countries that embrace state terrorism. It gives me no pleasure to tell the House that, sadly, what the Israelis are doing is wrong. How Mr. Peres can remain in that Cabinet is, frankly, beyond me.
	I was delighted to hear from the Home Secretary the statistic that four times as much humanitarian aid is now going in.

Jack Straw: I am the Foreign Secretary.

Jimmy Hood: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend; he has a new job.
	I saw a television report today about young boys playing football in Kabul. Before the downfall of the Taliban, they could have been put in prison for wearing football shorts, let alone playing football. That says a lot about what is happening. We are seeing changes; we welcome the new interim Government that will be set up in Kabul, and we welcome the liberation of women, and their inclusion in the new Government. We should take the opportunity to get more humanitarian aid in to save the many millions of Afghans who need it.
	In conclusion, I hope that in our next debate on this subject we will have many more joys to discuss. Perhaps in two or three months' time the Government will be up and running, military action will have ended in Afghanistan, and there will be an end to the terror. I see that the Secretary of State for Defence, whose position I shall not get wrong, is on the Front Bench. It is my honest viewand history will tellthat the Prime Minister performed as great a service as anyone could have done in giving support to the American Government. I commend him for doing what he did when he did, and the way in which he did it. Hawks in the State Department now want to expand military action into parts of the Sudan and Iraq, but I caution against such an extension. We should argue that what we are doing to defeat international terrorism is moral and right, but we should not allow the hawks in the State Department to take us that step further, which would undermine our moral case.

Menzies Campbell: I propose, so far as I can, to strain neither my voice nor the patience of the House in this short debate. I hope that those two objectives are mutually consistent.
	In the light of recent domestic political events, it would be right for me to restate once again Liberal Democrat support for Government policy since 11 September. Our support has never been slavish, as the Foreign Secretary knows, but I am satisfied now, as I was after 11 September, that action in Afghanistan is justified in law and is necessary for our protection. Like the Foreign Secretary, I could not have predicted that the action would be so successful so swiftly, or that a political framework would so quickly be put in place.

Julian Lewis: Does that support extend to the Liberal Democrat's newest recruit, the hon. former Labour Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)? If not, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the Liberal Democrat Whips succeeded, where the Labour Whips so signally failed, in keeping the hon. Gentleman quiet on the subject, as I do not see him in his place today?

Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman has any pretensions to fly-fishing, he will have to learn to cast a rather more gentle line than that. Such decisions are far above my pay gradeI am a humble foot-soldier in the Liberal Democrat army. All I can say is that in my father's house there are many mansions.
	More seriously, may I sound a note of caution? As our American friends say, it's not over till it's over. There may yet be substantial loss of life in Afghanistan before victory has been achieved. I know that to some extent it has been dismissed by those on the Treasury Bench, but I remain anxious about events at Mazar-e-Sharif and so, too, do many people.
	It is true that terrible things happen in conflict, but prisoners of war are entitled to the protections of the Geneva convention. I do not shrink from asserting without qualification that those who fight wars in the name of civilisation have a duty to observe civilised standards. There are as yet too many unanswered questions about what happened in the fort at Mazar-e-Sharif. Who, for example, took the decision to bomb the prisoners? How many of the dead, in truth, had their hands tied behind their back? What was the role of British forces?
	In another context, to which we shall no doubt move later today in the business of the House, the Home Secretarythe present Home Secretaryis fond of saying that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from scrutiny of their actions or even of their e-mails. We can apply that principle to the present issue. The House is entitled to know in due course, after proper investigation, precisely what happened at Mazar-e-Sharif and what role, if any, British forces played in those events.
	Questions still remain about the humanitarian effort but, like others, I welcome the information provided by the Foreign Secretary about the extent to which aid is now being admitted. As I have said before in the House, the political legitimacy of military action would be undermined, albeit retrospectively, if the humanitarian effort were to falter.
	The opening of the rail bridge in the north allows the mass transit of supplies, but they still have to be distributed throughout the country to all those who are in need. They will have to be distributed in a way that deals with the emergence of local warlords and, in some cases, bandits whose interest will be to try to acquire that aid for themselves, and to use it as a means of enforcing their own influence.
	As I think the Foreign Secretary expressly said, the achievements of the United Nations in Bonn and the formation of an interim Government should not be underestimated, although we are yet to be satisfied about how effectively their writ will run on the ground in Afghanistan. We may have managed to export some of the features of Cabinet democracy, as it appears that there is already some competition for the jobs that have been allocated and suggestions that others should have been preferred. Like others here, I think that the United Nations deserves enormous credit for its achievement at Bonn, as does Mr. Brahimi in particular.
	That achievement at Bonn underlines the need for a force on the ground. I would prefer it to be described as a stabilisation force. The shadow Foreign Secretary was right to ask a number of questions about that force. To some extent, they are allowed to lie on the table, because, as the Foreign Secretary said, no firm decisions have been taken. I should like to add that it is essential that the force should have a clearly defined mission and an express mandate from the United Nations. It must be mandated to intervene if that is necessary to prevent gross breaches of human rights. Srebrenica is a harsh lesson that should never be forgotten by those who seek on behalf of the international community to deploy military assets for the purpose of protection. Such a force will require robust rules of engagement, but, most important, it will require to know precisely why it is there in the first place.
	Estimates of the reconstruction bill in Afghanistan run as high as $25 billion for the next decadea substantial financial commitment. If we are to undercut the warlords and free people from the grip of the extremists who ran Afghanistan in the past, we must ensure that the funds for reconstruction do not end up in the pockets of the warlords. Furthermorethis point was hinted at in the early days after 11 Septemberwe will need a regional approach that deals not only with Afghanistan, but with the region in which it lies. It must try to deal with reconstruction, development, debt, the drug trade and security issues in central Asia and Pakistan, as well as Iran, to which I shall return in the context of what the shadow Foreign Secretary was pleased to describe as rogue states.
	The principal political issue that concerns most of us today is the question of a wider campaign. Military force has a place in the campaign against terrorism, but we should always remember that it is a tool or mechanism and not a policy in itself. It is most effective when it is used discriminately and in proportion to the achievement of precisely defined aims. It may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it may, equally, be inappropriate in others. Indeed, one can envisage some circumstances in which the use of force might be counter-productive in achieving the original objective.
	I have never thought that operations in Afghanistan would be sufficient to nullify the threat from al-Qaeda. As we know, evidence suggests that the network operates in other failed states such as Somalia and in the lawless regions of more established states such as the Philippines and Indonesia. If there is to be military action in relation to cells in any of those countries or in other parts of the world, surely we should seek as far as we can to conduct it with the co-operation of the Governments of the nations where it occurs. Where there are no effective Governments, it may be necessary to proceed without such support, but in every case there must be clear and credible evidence to justify action. Each case must turn on its own merits and be based on the most clear and analytical threat assessment.
	No substantial evidence has been produced so far to link the events of 11 September with Iraq. If military action were launched against Iraq without incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi complicity, the consequences would be disastrous for stability in the region, the future of the global coalition and the whole effort against international terrorism. No Arab Government, with the possible exception of Kuwait's, could support such a course of action. Moderate Arab Governments, such as Egypt or Jordan, would be bound for domestic political reasons to condemn any such extension of military action. The coalition that has been painstakingly put together would quickly unravel and the international consensus would evaporate.
	Most dangerously, especially in the light of current circumstances in the middle east, Saddam Hussein could perceive military action against Iraq as yet another opportunity to widen the conflict by targeting Israel, as he did in the Gulf war. We cannot assume the same restraint from an Israeli Government as was demonstrated in 1991 because the domestic circumstances in Israel today are so different from those that prevailed 10 years ago.

Bernard Jenkin: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman rule out military action against a country that is probably developing weapons of mass destruction?

Menzies Campbell: I was coming to that express point.

Bernard Jenkin: It should certainly be addressed.

Menzies Campbell: I was about to deal with the matter.
	Iraq has posed a serious problem for the international community for more than a decade. Saddam Hussein is a brutal ruler who subjects his people to ignominy and hardship, and we have drawn attention to that insufficiently often in the House. He manipulates the sanctions regime so that it bites where he wants it to bite, and so that the elitehis praetorian guardare immune and the ordinary people of Iraq suffer grievously. Plenty of statistical evidence from objective sources supports that view.
	The Iraqi regime's failure to comply with its obligations under successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, especially on the destruction of chemical and biological weapons capability, is not only a continuing source of anxiety but a mark of Saddam Hussein's determination not to bow to the will of the international community. In 1998, Richard Butler, a most robust and aggressive diplomat, was compelled to withdraw the inspection teams from Iraq because their work was being deliberately inhibited and thwarted.
	The Government and the United States Government decided that there should be military action, and that installations that were believed to harbour the means to manufacture weapons of mass destruction should be bombed. We supported that. It was the right thing to do because the action taken in 1998 was a deliberate and flagrant violation of the responsibilities that the United Nations Security Council resolutions imposed on Iraq.
	What has happened since? The strategy has been one of containment and deterrence, and it has been effective. There has been no threat to Riyadh or Kuwait City. There has been no threat to use weapons of mass destruction. When we consider the political consequences of embarking on a programme of military action against Iraq, we must ask ourselves: what compelling reasons suggest that an effective strategy of containment and deterrence should be abandoned? If possession of weapons of mass destruction is a casus belli, against how many other countries might military action be taken on that basis?
	The shadow Foreign Secretary talked about rogue states; his definition must surely apply to Syria and Iran. The Prime Minister is hardly back from Syria, and the Foreign Secretary has been back from Iran for only a little longer. For what purpose? It was to draw those countries into the international coalition. As both found, the middle east can be a bruising experience. I certainly supported the fact that they went there, and I support the conclusions that they were able to derive from so doing. If we now say that, by definition, these are rogue states, and that they may expect the threat of military action, the maintenance of the coalition will become extremely difficultalthough the Foreign Secretary might not think that his journey had been wasted. Are Libya and North Korea to be targeted? Have we thought what the consequences would be if we were to target those rogue states? First they were rogue states, then they were states of concern; since the Republican Administration took over they have again become rogue states.
	We tread a dangerous line in subscribing to the notion that we can identify a rogue state and then take military action against it. If we took every case on its merits, based on clear, unequivocal evidence, there might be some justification, but the idea that we should open up a broad front against any state that falls within the definition of rogue state, and that we could conduct military action against that state without incurring enormous political and perhaps even military consequences is one that carries a great deal of danger.

Doug Henderson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the large degree of support in the British military for the views that he is expressing? Such views were clearly stated by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute on Monday evening. He said:
	The desire to use greater force with less constraint, less distinction, and less proportionality . . . exposes our strategic centre of gravity
	that is, the coalition's
	 by radicalising the opinion of the Islamic world in favour of
	al-Qaeda.

Menzies Campbell: I have read that speech, which has already been referred to in the debate. It is the measured judgment of someone who would have the legal, moral and physical responsibility for deploying British forces in support of some of the action that is being contemplated. In such circumstances, his views must surely carry weight in our considerations.

Bernard Jenkin: I fully concur with the caution that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chief of the Defence Staff have expressed. It runs parallel with the comment that the Secretary of State for Defence made last weekthat it is often best
	to engage the enemy at longer range before the enemy gets the opportunity to attack.
	What evidence can the right hon. and learned Gentleman present to the American Administration to show that the policy of deterrence and containment has worked so effectively that Iraq is no threat, in order to comfort the Americans and create a situation in which his fear that they might act in an intemperate way does not arise? I do not share that fear; indeed, I believe that their response has been very considered.

Menzies Campbell: To paraphrase Shakespeare, the answer lies in ourselves and not in our stars. The answer lies in the exchange between James Baker and Tariq Aziz on the eve of the Gulf war, when James Baker told Tariq Aziz across the table that if he used weapons of mass destruction the response would be disproportionate. We know now that the response would have been a conventional response, but Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein did not know that.
	We must bear it in mind that totalitarian regimes make a great effort to preserve themselves. They are hardly likely to create circumstances in which their own destruction would be assured, were they to embark on a particular course of action. We have plenty of evidence from 10 years ago that deterrence works. Indeed, I often cite that in the House in support of the argument for the continuance of an independent nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom, which I believe is fundamental to our defence policy. That illustrates the fact that in Baghdad, at least, they understand that the theory of deterrence could well result in the visiting on the regime of the most terrible destruction, if they were to consider the use of weapons of mass destruction. They need look no further than Mr. James Baker if they want the evidence to support the theory of deterrence.
	The campaign against terrorism may almost certainly be moving to a different phase in which the United States, emboldened by its justified success, wishes to proceed much less collectively. We in the House and our Government will have to decide how we should respond, so let me set out a principle or two by which I believe those matters should be judged.
	The first duty of our Government is to serve the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom. I have always thought that the principle, My country, right or wrong left a great deal to be desired. The supposed principle, my ally, right or wrong is hardly less objectionable to me. Members of Congress are never slow to recognise their paramount obligation to serve the interests of those whom they represent. Here in the House, in any extension of the campaign against terrorism, we should surely do likewise.

Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) speaks his usual good sense, not least in respect of Afghanistan and opening the second front. I hear his views on the independent nuclear deterrent and revolting Back Benchers, and perhaps some revolting Back Benchers might reconsider their position if they too hear what he says.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the shadow Foreign Secretary raised important questions about deploying British forces in Afghanistan. Clearly, we need to know about their remit and force protection, and clearly there are concerns about overstretch of our forces and the effect on morale. We need to know whether any deployment is for a transitional period and whether those men and women are simply to play a headquarters role. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, those questions have not yet been finally decided and, however important they are, raising them at this point is a little premature.
	I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary began his speech with 11 September and the fact that yesterday was the three-month anniversary of that atrocity, which must surely be the starting point for any terrorism debate. It would perhaps be instructive for the House to consider, as my right hon. Friend did, the way in which certain elements of the press and public opinion responded to the continuing campaign. First, there was the build up to prepare for the military element. Perhaps three weeks into the bombing, we heard, as we heard three weeks after the start of the Kosovo campaign, that bombing never leads to a successful conclusion and that ground forces must be deployed. We heard about the effect on aid supplies, that lorry drivers and others were unprepared to take supplies in and that people would starve. We heard about the effects of the Afghan winter and that there should be a pause in the bombing for Ramadan.
	All those questions were raisedindeed, fedby the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, and perhaps we should have been more alert about getting our counter- information out earlier. Those criticisms were made in that period by our press and public opinion, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is clear that almost every one has been totally confounded by the facts that have appeared, so it might be instructive for those who raised the concerns to show a little humility and to be prepared to eat their words, although I do not know whether that will happen in the debate.
	Of course the military campaign was more successful than expected. Indeed, part of the problem is that it has been so successful that its political counterpart has taken longer to reach a conclusion. That political counterpart, however, has indeed been successful, so far at least. A remarkable conference has taken place in Konigsburg[Hon. Members: Konigswinter.] Konigswinter. Let us get it right. Konigsburg is on the other side of the Rhine. Anyway, despite all the tensions of the past, the warrior factions on the coalition side met.
	Perhaps most heartening is the fact that a new generation was involved in Petersbergmostly in their 40s and, perhaps, more internationally minded than the older generation. It looks as though they are now ready to deliver, as far as they can, an Afghanistan that will move into the 21st century and will be a force for stability in that important region, geostrategically.
	What lessons can we learn from our position and that of our allies? There is, of course, a long way to go, and Sir Michael Boyce's speech on Monday at the Royal United Services Institute identified some of the problems that remain with the rebuilding of Afghanistan. It cannot be left as a failed state. Anyone with a sense of history knows of those remaining problems and knows that they did not start with the Taliban, but at leastgiven enough international commitmentthere is the prospect of a more settled future for the sad people of that country. Refugees are beginning to return, and I hope that eventually many of the professional people who have fled the country and who are so needed there will have the confidence to return with their families.
	A massive and sustained aid effort and a long-term commitment are clearly necessary for stability. The cost may indeed be vast: the right hon. and learned Member for NorthEast Fife spoke of $25 billion over 10 years. We should, however, compare that figure with the cost of the US attacks, and put it in the context of the mayhem that may be caused in the region by an unstable, fragmented, broken state of Afghanistan. That perspective will teach us certain lessons.
	There is currently no strong central administration in Afghanistan. It is vital that donors not only give food aid, but help to improve the country's governance. Countries that have assisted the US and its allies will expect a reward, but many may have a very doubtful democratic background. A mixture of sticks and carrots will be needed.
	The UN's role is vital. The two immediate Security Council resolutions, 1368 and 1373, have been mentioned. As with Voltaire's God, if the UN were not there it would have to be created: only the UN could have provided the necessary cover and endorsement for the welcome moves that have been made.
	There have been so many welcome changes that the economic effects of 11 September may well not be as long lasting as some had feared, partly because of the resilience of the US economy. The political effects may be far more profound and far more long lasting. A boulder has been thrown into the pond, and the waves may not settle. Let us consider some of the remarkable changes that have come about.
	In our own country, we might not have seen the progress that has been made on decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland had it not been for the effects of 11 September. There is also the new relationship broached by our Prime Minister, followed by the NATO Secretary General, in relation to Russia. Russia, having joined the coalition, is now seen as a real partner for NATO, going beyond 19 plus one. It has assisted in so many ways.

Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between the United States and Russia is central to the future of global security? Does he agree that it is extremely important that the summit scheduled for Moscow next year comes up with a strategic agreement whereby international security will be enhanced, and that no steps are taken that can undermine that relationship over the next few months? It is essential that those two countries work out a new strategic relationship.

Donald Anderson: It is vital to build on the Crawford summit and on the personal relationship between President Putin and President Bush. Russia is not a superpower in the way that it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It can, however, play a positive role. Although there are unilateralist adventures, as there were in respect of Kabul and Pristina, Russia is very much on side. That should be encouraged; it is in all our interests.
	Previously, China's views on national sovereignty led it fundamentally to oppose intervention within states, yet it has been ready to assist the coalition, partly because of the overflow of Uighur terrorism from China into Afghanistan. Central Asia has gained a new salience with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. I was delighted to learn that the Foreign Office is reappraising the role of the British Government and, indeed, of our European allies within central Asia, so the world is changing as a result of 11 September. In my judgment, it is changing positively.
	President Bush's hesitation about engaging in the middle east, following the failed but magnificent efforts of his predecessor, has been overcome. The United States Administration have recognised that they must be committed to peace in the middle east because it affects their interests.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is not my right hon. Friend a tad optimistic? The Israeli Government seem to be set on assassination squads against certain Palestinian groups, bombing the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority and launching rocket attacks on all sorts of Palestinian places. Does he not think that we must stop that and be much stronger with Israel so that there can be a genuine peace process, and that since 11 September the plight of the Palestinian people has got worse rather than better?

Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend has his own view. I agree in respect of the assassination policy, but his comments are totally one-sided; he has looked at one side of the balance sheet. Is he confident, for example, that Chairman Arafat has the will or the commitment to stop the suicide bombers, who are destined to destroy any fragile peace? The question must surely be asked. If Chairman Arafat were to exert himself more, could he not lock up and keep locked up those who are determined to undermine the peace process in the middle east? Let us have a broader approach, not a one-eyed approach, in respect of the middle east. Clearly, there is now more prospect of positive movement because the US is committed; only the US has the necessary clout in the area.
	I shall seek to move on, as it is a short debate. I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said in respect of the second phase. I am concerned that some in the US Administration do not take either a multilateral or unilateral approach, but support the concept of the posse: from time to time, rather like in the wild west, the sheriff, the United States, will gather a group of people to ride into the desert, catch the baddies, return and not have a continuing commitment. That is, if I may vastly oversimplify, the theme of Richard Haass, who is now a senior official in the State Department. There is a fear that the US may be ready, with selected allies, to go galloping off into certain areas, in which context Iraq has been mentioned most. I wholly endorse the wise comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we must be very cautious about Iraq. The Taliban were never a real state: Saddam's Iraq is. The Taliban and al-Qaeda hardly had any air force or any modern surface-to-air missiles: Iraq does. Iraq also has residual weapons of mass destruction and considerable military potential. It is also questionable whether the Iraqi opposition would provide a successful replacement, quite apart from the major political implications for the region that the right hon. and learned Gentleman set out so eloquently.
	Failed states cause major problems, and we all know which ones we mean. We understand that US special forces are already operating in Somalia. However, it is the role of our Government to urge caution. If further campaigns are to take place, military action should be low down on the list of options. We should, so far as we are able, seek to say to our US allies, Yes, we are with you in Afghanistan and in rooting out the al-Qaeda networks, wherever they are, but beware of blundering into parts of the middle east where the ramifications would be serious. I suspect that debate is being held between each side of the Potomacbetween the State Department and the Pentagon.
	Major changes have occurred since 11 September. I hope that those who severely criticised the campaign and who were always ready to see the negative side will be ready to revisit their views. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively will now see a far more positive picture than before.

Peter Viggers: The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) always has the ear of the House and we listen to his comments with great interest. Over the past dozen years, we have passed through three distinct phases of defence threat. The first was the cold war, when the Soviet Union built a wall to keep its people in. We faced the massive military threat of Russia, which had both conventional and nuclear weapons.
	At that time, it was difficult to explain our defence strategy. I was the chairman of an organisation called Campaign for Defence and Multilateral Disarmament. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was also heavily involved in that campaign and we visited schools and colleges to try to persuade students that it was necessary to have nuclear weapons and that mutual assured destruction was the way ahead. However, that was not an easy argument to win. In Liverpool, for example, we went down by 370 votes to 15, with the undergraduates almost universally rejecting the concept of mutual assured destruction. Indeed, it is not an attractive proposition.
	I remember Mrs. Thatcher being asked whether she would press the nuclear button and she said with enthusiasm, Of course. That was not an easy argument to put across, but it was the right approach. We faced down the evil empire and the Soviet Union was weighed down by its excessive military expenditure. Eventually, truth and right prevailed and Russia retrenched. We actually won that campaign. It was not easy, but a consistent thread running through the three phases that we have faced is that careful analysis, the proper motivation of well trained personnel in the Army, Navy and Air Force, and determination will win through to the right answer. That worked in the cold war, which ended at the end of the 1980s.
	The second phase was a time of uncertainty, especially from Russia's point of view. Russia was like the Vatican without the Pope after the fall of communism. The Russians were bemused and lost. Their military-industrial combines, which were such an important part of their overall economy, were no longer required in the same way. Russia also lost the satellite countries that purchased its military equipment, and it had to watch the advance of NATO, which took its markets as well as its allies.
	Russia had to regroup, which led to uncertainty there, and there was uncertainty too in the United States as it watched Europe taking the peace dividend with enthusiasm. American defence expenditure remains at about 3.2 per cent. of gross domestic product, but European defence expenditure has fallen from 3 per cent. to about 2 per cent. of GDP. In Germany, it is 1.5 per cent. of GDP, and in Luxembourg it is 1.1 per cent.
	Last week, I visited the American national defence university, where I picked up some vibrant phrases. I was told, for instance, that Europe was behaving like a big, fat, lazy Switzerland with regard to defence.
	The Americans are conscious that, in financial terms, the European defence effort is only 60 per cent. of the effort made by the US, but that it is only about 15 per cent. as effective. The Americans have between six and seven times the military power of the whole of Europe. That gap is too large for complacency. It is not acceptable that the Americans should spend 26 per cent. of their defence effort on research and technology, whereas none of the European countries spend anything like as much. The United Kingdom and Turkey come closest to the American proportion. The technology gap is deeply worrying, and it was worrying before 11 September.
	As for the European perspective, Europe was groping for a role in defence, and produced the concept of the European security and defence identity. After the agreement reached by the UK and France at St. Malo in December 1998, the concept was that Europe would develop its own command structure within NATO. However, it is not good enough to develop command structures without increasing capability. A Texan told me that people in his state had another vibrant phrase for those who acted in that way. He said that they called them ranchers with big hats but no cattle.
	The third phase of the defence threat arose after 11 September, when the situation changed. A new type of threat exists, and it is no longer sufficient to plan in terms of deterrence. We must work to prevent the terrorist threat from being taken further.
	That requires decisive military action. I am surprised that the House so far has let off hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), the international development spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party. She is in the Chamber at present, and her policy was clearly contrary to that of her party, in that she urged that we should stop the bombing during Ramadan. Those who agreed with the hon. Lady stand in a direct and consistent line with those many Labour Members who belonged to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament during the cold war.
	There will always be peoplewell meaning enough though they may bewho lack the ability to recognise military need. They will shrink from military measures, and fail to carry through the measures that are needed.

Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Viggers: Yes. I look forward with great enthusiasm to discovering whether the hon. Lady has recanted from her previous position on urging a delay in bombing during Ramadan.

Jenny Tonge: I do not think that recant is the appropriate word. It is rather depressing that so many hon. Members should take that attitude, when other hon. Members were desperately worried about the humanitarian problem in Afghanistan. Millions of people there faced starvation even before the military action began.
	We questioned the nature of the military action that had been undertaken, and whether it would make the humanitarian situation worse. In the event, the hon. Gentleman should be honest and decent enough to admit that the bombing came to a conclusion very much more quickly than he thought. [Hon. Members: And you thought.] Indeed, quicker than I thoughtI am perfectly prepared to admit that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot make a speech on an intervention.

Peter Viggers: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that we all care about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We were all concerned about the horrors that were imposed on the population by the leadership of the Taliban. They include the way in which women were treated and the way in which the then Government prevented food aid from reaching its destination.
	The Liberal Democrats are famous for saying one thing in one part of the country and another thing in another. It is unacceptable for the hon. Lady, who is the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on international development, to say one thing when their spokesman on foreign affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for NorthEast Fife (Mr. Campbell), said something clean to the contrary. We have had enough of the Liberal Democrats behaving in that manner. She was wrong, and she should have the decency to admit that not only has she been proved to be wrong but that she was wrong at the time as well. It is also wrong of the Liberal Democrats to seek to give two versions of the same story.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman pause for a moment in his triumphalism and consider the consequences of the bombing of Afghanistan? Depleted uranium bombs, cluster bombs and daisy-cutters have been used and there have been civilian and military casualties. In addition, atrocities have been committed by all sides during the taking of prisoners and particular towns. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that Afghanistan is now in that much a better position than it was a couple of months ago?

Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable and consistent record in taking the line that he has just expressed so articulately. Yes, I believe that Afghanistan now has a better future than it would have had if we had not taken military action. I believe that it is in a better position than it was before military action was taken. That is exactly the point that I sought to make earlier. Occasionally it is necessary not only to analyse a situation and to have trained and motivated troops, but to have the courage of one's convictions and to carry them through to a military conclusion. That is difficult, but it was necessary and right in this case.
	Although military action was necessary, we should also do much more. The phrase winning hearts and minds is often used, but winning them in the present situation is not enough. That gives the impression that we know all the answers and that the other side does not. We must think much more in terms of building bridges.
	I recently read the well known book The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order and I was struck by the fact that, in 1900, about 40 per cent. of the world's population was governed by western civilisations. That figure is now down to 11 per cent. The proportion of the world's population governed by Islamic countries was about 6 per cent. but it has gone up to 18 per cent.
	Many people who were previously governed by western nations now look to Islamic Governments and to a different kind of government that is, in its own way, very devout and eschews some of the things, such as alcohol and gambling, that we do not. They believe that we allow our women to wander around semi-naked and they have strong convictions. They do not like the blue jeans and Disney culture of the United States and its allies, including ourselves. We must recognise that there are many genuine people with whom we must build bridges and reach a better understanding. There is a great deal to be done.
	There is also a great deal to be done in restructuring the architecture of our military and diplomatic effort. We must look to the United Nations and work out whether NATO should extend its area of operations and be prepared to act out of area. We should examine the G7 and the G8 and attempt to reach a consensus among the Governments there. We must use a range of international structures to try to build bridges to those countries who harbour many people who might be tempted to oppose us. I congratulate all those involved in the military effort, but a great diplomatic effort is necessary too.
	Previous generations bequeathed to us the nuclear weapon. So far we have survived without its use except on the two occasions when it was used to end the second world war. Let us hope that we are wise enough to counter the dangers of terrorism and are able to allow future generations to survive in the way that we have.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: This is the sixth time that we have debated this matter in the House. I have sat through all those debates, or through the majority of themit has been Operation Infinite Concentration. They have been fine debates, characterised for the most part by reason, tolerance and an acceptance of each others' views and differences. There has been an almost complete absence of bragging when people are right and a reasonable amount of recantation when people believe that they are wrong. I very much believe that, and in so far as I have been wrong in the views that I have expressed about this war, I shall say soindeed, I shall do that in a moment. In doing so, I want to make it clear to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no one has had me behind the bike shed[Interruption.]or anywhere else for that matter.
	At the beginning of the campaign, many of us believed that it would be a much longer and bloodier affair than it has been. We were wrong. I was one of those who believed thatI was wrong. Not only do I acknowledge the fact that I was wrong, but I am overjoyed to have been wrong in that particular respect. I gain some comfort in my recantation from the knowledge that the Foreign Secretary shared my view and my concern as, indeed, did many Membersincluding Opposition Members. We were wrongthank God.
	The present position in Afghanistan is as set out by the Foreign Secretary. The Taliban, inasmuch as they were a fighting force, have been defeated and destroyed. The Arabs of al-Qaeda are reduced to holding a tiny proportion of the land and are under attack of such sustained ferocity that it isas we all knowunlikely that they will remain as a military force for much of the foreseeable future.
	It must be acknowledged that at least two of the ancillary aims of the operation have been achievedor will be in the immediate future. The main aimthe apprehension and trial of Osama bin Ladenhas not been achieved. It is to be hoped that it will beas I have always said.
	However, there remain a significant and growing number of people, inside and outside this place, who still provide the voices of oppositionI am one. I shall attempt to articulate that. I hopeand thinkthat I speak for many outside the House, perhaps far more relative to the number inside it. There are thoseI was certainly one of themwho have always accepted the need for appropriate military action in order to obtain Osama bin Laden and his fellow conspirators and to bring them before international justice. I have always urged that such international justice should be undertaken by an international court.
	The Foreign Secretary is fond of reading debates and quoting them back at those hon. Members who have been involved in themas he did to some effect earlier. I dare say that if he was still in the Chamber, he might have a copy of my speech of 16 October. If so, he would have found that what I said represents an honourable and straightforward account of my views then. I still hold those views.
	However, approval of the principle of military intervention is not to be taken as approval of the methods of military intervention.

Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. and learned Friend continues his speech, will he confirm that if an international criminal court came into existence, it would not apply in this case because it could not act retrospectively? Does he agree, however, that one legal way forward would be through a special international judicial process, which could be established through the United Nations, to deal with the perpetrators of 11 September?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: That is absolutely right, and it is, of course, the purport of an early-day motion that has been signed by very nearly 100 Members of all persuasions and all the varying views, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	It is the method of military intervention to which the objection relates. The methods of warfare that have been employed in Afghanistan have, most importantly and in its most sinister context, come to represent a pattern of foreign policy that involves the enlistment of any satrap and any agent, whatever the reputation, the form, the background or the antecedents of those satraps for violence, slaughter or brutality during the time of their own reign in their own country.
	The Northern Alliance, which wrought havoc throughout Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996, is suddenly elevated to the position of being our friend. Those satraps are enlisted, armed and set to do our own business, supported by high-level bombing from 30,000 ft, using a range of ordnance terrible in its implementation and consequencesmuch of it covered with the graffiti of American bomb loaders, carrying messages to those who will ultimately be killed. In this case a not insignificant number of those killed were innocent, collateral civilians.
	Those who believe that that is a legitimate method of warfare must ask themselves some questions about our own experience in these islands. We are old hands at dealing with terrorismwe know about it; we have sustained the fact and the fear of it for many years and many have died during that time. Many have died in Guildford, Birmingham, London and the Old Baileydare I say?and No. 10 Downing street was subjected to mortar attack. Many British soldiers, policemen and other service and security personnel died in their efforts to apprehend those who were responsible for that and to track down their terrorist groups.
	There was an alternative, unthinkable though it was, because all those atrocities were committed by one or other of the branches of the IRA. The alternative would have been to arm, encourage and set on the Protestant paramilitaries. They could have been encouraged to do the work of British soldiers to ensure that there were no British casualties. It is absolutely unthinkable that we should do such a thing, that we should enlist the mad dogs of the Shankill road and that we should enlist to our cause precisely the people who commit atrocities similar to those committed by those whom we are trying to apprehend.
	What is the difference in truth between doing that and enlisting as satraps those who, in success, have done nothing but wreak havoc, who have killed hundreds of their prisoners and who have publicly castrated and executed the prisoners who have been takena fact that has been not only recorded and repeated, but photographed in sickening detail. In truth, what is the difference between what we are doing now and what we could have done in Northern Ireland?

Patrick Mercer: Not for a moment would I compare the security forces in Northern Ireland with the execrable behaviour of the Protestant paramilitaries. None the less, we the English establishment

Ben Bradshaw: British.

Patrick Mercer: Yes, the English establishment used the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regimentin other words, indigenous forcesto prosecute the war over there. The majority of the casualties, of course, came from Irish sources, rather thanI use the term advisedlyEnglish sources.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but in making it he must understand the clear distinction between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, for instance, General Dostum, who is pressed to our service. Not even in the wildest accusations against the RUC, of which I am a considerable supporter, has anyone suggested that it uses methods such as tying people to tank traps and driving them round the yard until they are reduced to mincemeat, which is the chosen method of punishment of one of our finest friends in the Northern Alliance.
	We would never have contemplated the course that I have described because, first, we know full well that it has no sounding in morality and, secondly, if one sows that wind, one reaps a whirlwind more terrible than one can possibly say. We are far away from Afghanistan, and we will not reap the immediate whirlwind, but whirlwind there will undoubtedly be, and at its vortex are the tens of warlords who now reign supreme in Afghanistan.
	I can see a certain amount of shifting on the Front Bench, so I shall deal with the point that is implicit. The diplomatic effort has been worth it, and there has been a limited amount of perceived success. Before we count those chitties, however, let us reflect on the fact that one reason why agreement has been reached in those talks may well be that 4 billion of foreign aid is contingent on a form of agreement. That may well be a motivating factor at least as powerful among the warlords of Afghanistan as the concept of international peace.
	I turn now to one another matter, which would lead me, if there were a vote, to continue in my opposition. It concerns not Afghanistan, but America. On 13 November, the President of the United States, by unilateral edict and decree, without consulting Congress or the Supreme Court, passed into law a system of American military tribunals. It is the single greatest abnegation of civil liberty since the signing of the American constitution. Military tribunals have been set up which will try people in secret, with no rules of evidence, right to representation or burden of proof, and with two thirds of the court able to pass verdict and to pass a sentence of death. Those tribunals are the ultimate irony in America herself as she fights the war for freedom in which many of us support her.
	The one point about the tribunals that is more important than anything else is that they are for foreign nationals only. American civilians, no matter how bestial the acts of terrorism in which they are implicated, retain all the rights of the constitution, to jury trial, representation, the burden of proof and, ultimately, the verdict of their peers. Within America, two laws have been set up: one for Americans and one for everybody else, which, incidentally, includes British citizens. In doing that, America unhappily has now contained within her own jurisprudence the double standards that make her, as she well knows or ought to know, vilified throughout the world, to the despair of her friends, among whom I would name myself without question.
	Until America gives up this lamentable legacy of operating by satraps and agents of this kind of reputation, from the Kosovo Liberation Army to the Contras, and from the dictators of Latin America to the dictators of south-east Asia, and until she learns the lessons of this form of foreign policy, all the work we do in Afghanistan and all the success of our policies and our speed in achieving them will be rendered absolutely negligible in the annals of international terrorism.

Julian Lewis: I would be inclined to agree with some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall- Andrews) were it not for the fact that the result of using indigenous peoples and forces, in some of the recent campaigns that he opposed, has been not only the success of the campaign but the introduction of a system of democracy where none existed before. All the signs are that, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, we will see a relatively democratic regime emerge in Afghanistan. All the signs are that, despite what he said about the KLA, we will see a relatively democratic regime in Kosovo. And all the signs are that, despite what he has just said, we are seeing a relatively democratic regime in Serbia.
	The lesson was also learned right back in 1982 when, in spite of the same sort of objections expressed with the same sort of motives by the same sort of people on the same part of the political spectrum, we saw not only military success in the Falkland Islands but the emergence of democracy in Argentina itself. The only area in which our policy has so far failed was in the Gulf in 199091, when half-measures were employed in the case of Iraq, and we did not go to the assistance of those people locally who might have overthrown Saddam Hussein, which might have led to the emergence of a relatively democratic system there as well.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept that many of us supported the war in the Falklands and the war in Kuwait as being necessary. Will he accept, however, that the KLA did not win the war in Kosovo? The end of that war was brokered by the Russians after 78 days of bombing. Will he also accept that as a result of what happened in Kosovo, although there are the stems of democracy, the KLA is now the most widely feared drug-running terrorist organisation within the Kosovan and Albanian borders?

Julian Lewis: I will not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis. I believe that it was important that the Russians did not actively support the Serbs, and that was one of several factors in the successful outcome. What really mattered, however, was not the bombing campaign alone, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) seemed to imply, if I heard him correctly, but the fact that it was allied to the threat that ground forces would indeed be used.

Ben Bradshaw: indicated assent

Julian Lewis: I am delighted to see some support from the Government in that analysis. It follows that one of three options will be taken: the first is to take no military action at all against such countries; the second is to take indiscriminate military action involving bombing alone, which will not work; the third is to do the one thing that has a chance of working, which is a combination of bombing and the use of ground forceseither one's own, in a threat or in actual invasion, or indigenous ground forces. Without ground forces of one sort or another, a military campaign will not be successful.

Several hon. Members: rose

Julian Lewis: I give way first to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

Alice Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the North Atlantic Assembly, to which I am a delegate, was told by Interpol that in 1998 the KLA had very strong links with Osama bin Laden and, indeed, that he visited Albania to meet other terrorists? Does the hon. Gentleman not think it ironic that as the allies were acting as the air force for the KLA, those very same terrorists may have been plotting the twin towers tragedy?

Julian Lewis: If that is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, my answer is that one can only deal with one problem at a time. If, when one has dealt with the proximate problemwhich at that time was Serbian aggressionsubordinate problems emerge, one can deal with those as well. I have every confidence that the Americans, under President Bush, andI am proud to say this as a member of the loyal Oppositionthe Government, if they continue on the path that they have consistently followed since 11 September, will prove equal to the occasion. I pay that compliment to the Government and hope that they will acknowledge that they have had unflinching support from the Conservatives, if not from other Opposition parties and some Labour Members. Our support has been given generously and wholeheartedly. We are happy to endorse the Government's actions so far and the success that they have met so far.

Tam Dalyell: It so happened that last night I was at the annual dinner of my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, who have returned for the second time from Kosovo. I stayed with them during their first tour of duty there. I asked them what the difference is now, and every one of those people who have just come back from Kosovo said that there is a terrible problem, not with the Serbs, as there was during their first tour of duty, but with KLA extremists. They are the problem facing British troops.

Julian Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman, who knows that I greatly respect his views although I sometimes disagree with them, that I entirely endorse what he has just said. I visited Kosovo as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. My point is that we are now in a far better position to deal with the problems in Kosovoeven if the boot is now on the other foot, as unjustifiably as it was when on the Serbian footthan we would have been had we not dealt firmly with Milosevic's aggression.

Several hon. Members: rose

Julian Lewis: I will now give way for the last time.

Jon Owen Jones: For the sake of the completeness of his list of examples of support for indigenous people in conflicts and the success rate thereofI agree that there have been successeswhy does the hon. Gentleman not use the example of Afghanistan itself? There, supportmainly from the Americans and Saudi Arabiagiven to people such as the mujaheddin fomented the problems that face us now. Why not use that example as well?

Julian Lewis: I am happy to refer to that example. As I have had occasion to point out previously, one must be less selective about where one stops the clock when looking back on history. The cause of the problems is not the support that the Americans and the British special services gave to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan; it is the fact that in 1979 the then Soviet Union invaded the country and triggered the cycle of events with which we are still dealing today.
	Having given genuine and well-deserved plaudits to the Government, I want to raise one small issue that has caused me some sadness. It relates to what might be an academic question: what would happen if Osama bin Ladenor, perhaps more realistically, one or another of his chief lieutenantsfell into the hands of the British forces rather than those of America or any other country? During our debate on the coalition against international terrorism on 1 November, I intervened on the Secretary of State for Defence to ask
	how he would resolve the following dilemma. If Osama bin Laden were to come into United Kingdom jurisdiction, would we be able to surrender him to America, given the restrictions that we have adopted on not surrendering anyone to a country which has the death penalty?
	To shows of approval on both sides of the House, the Secretary of State robustly replied:
	I would have no hesitation or difficulty about achieving that.[Official Report, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 1022-23.]
	I was therefore sorry to see a Press Association release dated 9 December and headed Britain against bin Laden death penalty, says Hoon. It reports the Secretary of State as saying:
	We do extradite people to countries with the death penalty, obviously subject to certain undertakings.
	The release continues:
	Asked whether this meant that the US authorities would have to offer assurances that bin Laden would not face execution, Mr. Hoon said: 'That is the position.'
	Whoever has got at the Secretary of State, that is a sad reversal of a welcome and robust answer he had previously given in the House.

Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Lewis: No, because others want to speak and time is limited.
	I was fortunate enough to participate in the first of these debates, during the emergency sitting that took place when Parliament was recalled on 14 September, so soon after the events in New York and elsewhere in the United States. I said then that it was pointless and probably self-defeating to speculate publicly about specific measures of retaliation; that remains my view. However, it is permissible to examine the extent to which the abstract theory of terrorism has or has not been borne out by the events of the past three months.
	All terrorism has a specific central feature, which is the ability to cause maximum mayhem with minimum effort. However, the brand of terrorism with which we are dealing appeared at the outset to combine three other deadly features: high-tech terrorism, stateless terrorism and suicide terrorism. I shall briefly consider each of those three.
	High-tech terrorism is that which uses the assets of developed states as weapons against those states. That, together with the weapons of mass destruction that the terrorists would like to acquire, could constitute a form of military jujitsu, whereby the opponent's greater weight is turned into a weapon against him. However, it is interesting to note that although the attacks on New York's twin towers seemed to subscribe strongly to that principlewhat else but something on the scale of airliners packed with fuel could have achieved such devastationthere seems to have been a failure on the part of that terrorist organisation to stay its hand long enough, until it had the more deadly weapons which, we understand from the Government's understandably limited comments, the bin Laden organisation has sought and continues to seek. We must be thankful that, in a sense, the attacks in America were prematureor so it can be argued.
	What of stateless terrorism? That appears to be a possibility when one first examines the bin Laden organisation and the way in which its tentacles extend to so many countries. In fact, that has not been achieved either. Al-Qaeda is cross-border, but is dependent on what have been described as failed states. The very fact that it has had to operate in states such as Afghanistan has turned out to be a weakness in its armour. It is significant that when things began to go wrong in Afghanistan, the indigenous people who had supported the Taliban turned against al-Qaeda and bin Laden to a considerable extent, continually referring to them as foreigners and surrendering themselves while leaving al-Qaeda fighters to try to save their own necks.
	The third feature is the most worrying: suicide terrorism. At the outset, parallels were rightly drawn between the events in America and the attack on Pearl Harbour. The reason why that parallel is especially strong can be seen in discoveries made after the second world war about Japanese thinking at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour. Any rational calculation would have shown that, however successful that attack might be, the Japanese were bound to lose in the end. Documents uncovered after the war revealed their attitude to have been along these linesI quote from memory: Sometimes a situation arises when all you can do is kick up your heels and leap into the gorge. Such was the degree of fanaticism consistently shown throughout the far east war by the Japanese, who often sacrificed themselves in the face of impossible odds and in impossible situations.
	We have had to ask ourselves, would the same sort of remorseless self-sacrifice be shown on a large scale by the bin Laden organisation and the Taliban? The answer is, again, that that has not yet been proved to be the caseindeed, there are indications that it was not the case.
	I was intrigued by the confirmation by the Secretary of State for Defence, in testimony to the Select Committee as recently as 28 November, that it appears that a significant number of the 19 hijackers on the four planes did not know that they were on a suicide mission. I see that the Minister is nodding. Therefore bin Laden had felt it was reliable to inform only a minority of those whom he was sending to their death that that would occur.
	I noted in yesterday's Evening Standard the report by Jeremy Campbell about the video that has been discovered in Afghanistan. It shows bin Laden
	'gloating and chuckling' on the tape.
	It is said that he
	seems amused by the fact that more than half the 19 hijackers did not know they would die, but thought they were on a routine hijacking.
	It seems that the organisation is not exactly overwhelmed with people who are anxious to go to paradise with all the many benefitsthe 72 virgins and all the rest of itthat their leaders tell them to expect.
	I wish to give others a chance to contribute to the debate, so I shall curtail my remarks. Given uncertainty about the severity and the persistence of the threat, the correct approach to our undertaking necessary and, I hope, temporary infringements of some of our traditional liberties should be sunset legislationlegislation that will lapse automatically, unless specifically renewed, after an agreed period.
	Democracy has always faced these problems in wartime. Churchill's chief of staff on the COS Committee during the war was Lord Ismay, who later became the first Secretary General of NATO. I shall conclude by referring to something that he observed in his memoirs, which is as true in relation to terrorism today as it was in relation to the more conventional threat that nearly destroyed the democratic systems of the west in the past. He said:
	It is easy to criticise peaceful democracies for their habitual lack of preparedness when a war breaks out, but it is only fair to recognise that the dice are loaded against them. Dictators, bent on aggression . . . are masters of their own timetable. They are free to decide when to strike, where to strike and how to strike, and to arrange their armament programmes accordingly. Their potential victims, the democracies . . . with their inherent hatred of war, do not know when or where the blow will fall, or what manner of blow it will be.
	We must bear in mind that if we are to win this war, as has been the case with previous wars, there must be no half-measures. We must use indigenous opposition and build coalitions. However, we must not be ruled by the fact that we build coalitions. We must do what is right, what is necessary and what is efficacious in eradicating the terrorist threat to modern civilisation.

Hugh Bayley: Two weeks ago, the House bought me an aeroplane ticket as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, enabling me to visit the Afghan refugee camps on the Pakistan- Afghan border. One of the impressions that I came back with was of the huge burden that has been borne by Pakistan, which since 1979 has been providing refuge to refugees from Afghanistan. At the peak of the problem in 1990, there were 3.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Prior to 11 September, there were about 3 million. It is estimated that about 150,000 more refugees have entered the country since then.
	The world community took a close interest in what was happening in Afghanistan in the 1980s when the mujaheddin were fighting the Soviets. However, in the 1990s, when that conflict ended, we lost interest. We left Pakistan holding the baby. Literally, it was holding hundreds of thousands of Afghan babies. The strain on Pakistan's infrastructureit is a poor countryis considerable. We, the members of the Select Committee, were told that in Pakistan's North West Frontier province, half of all hospital beds are used by Afghan refugees.
	Pakistan needsand I am pleased to say that it is receiving it from the United Kingdomconsiderable aid. We have increased our aid spend for Pakistan this year threefold, to approximately 52 million. It will not be enough to increase that spend for only this year. We mustI know that the Department for International Development plans thismaintain this level of support for Pakistan in future years.
	We have also provided substantial aid for Afghanistan. The Department for International Development is extremely well respected in the region for the way that we use our aid money effectively. One example is the World Food Programme, which has done a magnificent job in maintaining the channels through which food has been brought into Afghanistan during the conflict. The WFP has told me that the UK's contribution, unlike that of most countries, came in the form of cash. That had two advantages. First, the WFP could use it quickly to buy food when it was needed. Secondly, the local region's economy was supported, the food being bought within the region. United Kingdom aid money has been buying wheat at $130 a tonne, an extremely good price.
	We should congratulate the United States on its contribution to food relief. It is by far the largest contributor. It has contributed about 80 per cent. of all food aid taken in by the World Food Programme. It is giving its aid in kind. Representatives of the WFP told me that if the US is shipping this aid on US-flagged ships, the shipping costs are about $110 a tonne. That is hardly less than what we are paying for the wheat.
	The United States has struck a good deal with the Government of Pakistan, in which Pakistan is surrendering its stocks of wheat, which are going into Afghanistan now. Those stocks will be replenished when the American food ships arrive in the new year.
	I pay tribute to the truckers. That applies to both the WFP's employees and the Afghan private truckers, who have kept the aid moving during the conflict. I also pay tribute to the Afghan non-governmental organisation workers who have distributed the aid within the country. I met a man called Aziz Hakimian Afghan who works for Oxfam in Herat. He was there throughout the bombing until two days before it fell. He had to leave because of the opposition from the Taliban and people funded by outside organisations.
	Aziz Hakimi said that most of the people of Herat welcomed the military intervention of the west. They saw that it would change the intolerable regime under which they were living. He described the Taliban to me as a foreign Government. I said, What do you mean? Do you mean the Pashtun from a different part of the country, people from a different ethnic group, are foreign? He replied, No, I don't mean that at all. The Pashtun are Afghans and there is a place for the Pashtun in the Afghan Government. Indeed, there must be a place for the Pashtun in the Afghan Government. The Taliban is a foreign regime because it is one of Arabs, Chechens and Pakistanis. It is not an Afghan regime.
	I pay tribute to the aid workers, who are real heroes. They have been able to ensure that the humanitarian aid that is provided by the west is delivered to the people who need it.
	One of the refugee camps that we visited was called Kachagarhi. It has existed for about 20 years and is home to 78,000 refugees. We visited some of the schools, where there are more than 11,000 children in school. I suspect that that is about a third or a quarter of all the children. There are far more boys than girls in school. There are 15 boys' schools and three girls' schools.
	One of the girls in class 7 asked rather pointedly, Why is there no secondary class for girls? There are secondary classes for boys. The policy of UNHCR is to provide primary education to help us meet the development target of ensuring that by 2015 all girls and all boys throughout the world receive primary education. However, we must not ignore the need to provide secondary education to Afghan girls, both in Afghanistan itself and in the refugee camps in Pakistan, because women will play a key role in the reconstruction of the country, not least because they were not combatants. They should play an extremely important role, not just in national Government, although it is good that there are three women in the Cabinet of the interim Administration, but in villages and the regions.
	Overall, conditions in the Kachagarhi refugee camp were poor. If one was trying to create a seed bed to nurture extremism and anger towards the west, one would create the conditions that we created by withdrawing support from Afghan refugees in the 1990s. We must not make that mistake again. We have got to stick with Pakistan until the refugees can and do return to Afghanistan. The key to their return is providing secure conditions so that people feel that they will be safe if they return home.
	I do not want to detain the House so I shall conclude with a few words about the military campaign and whether the coalition should take it beyond the borders of Afghanistan. Our armed forces and intelligence services have been very effective indeed, but there are limits to what we can ask them to do. If they are stretched too far, they will be unable to deliver what we ask of them. We therefore need to address an essential question posed in a speech on Monday by Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that
	we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan.
	If we have to make that choice and select one or other option, let us not make the same mistake that the west made in the 1990s by walking away from Afghanistan. If we do so, we will breed more poverty, despair, and anger; we will breed more extremists and create conditions in which terrorists can operate, leading to a risk of further terrorist attacks against this country or our allies.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). I regret some of the language used by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and, in a curiously political speech for a serving officer, the Chief of the Defence Staff. Both used the pejorative terms of the wild west to describe American actions or aspirations in Afghanistan. That is not helpful; in many ways it denigrates the efforts of the United States and ourselves.
	I recently spoke to an English Muslim who was heavily involved in the Chechen affair. He was a man of enormously moderate views and left me with one or two interesting thoughts. He echoed the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence, who said:
	enemies that are half defeated can be very dangerous.
	My Muslim friend pointed out, in common with much of the evidence that we heard in the Select Committee on Defence, that much of al-Qaeda is still operating across the world, not least in many European countries, and that we still have enemies operating untouched in failed states such as Somalia and Yemen.
	I echo Admiral Boyce, who said that our response cannot simply be military and must be proportionate, otherwise we will endanger the coalition, which is proving successful, and are likely to radicalise Arab opinion. My Muslim friend made two points. First, he said that he was glad that so far bin Laden appeared to have escaped because that would show him up for what he wasa man who was not prepared to stick with his troops or defend his ground to the last man and the last round, which may well undermine the fighting qualities of the remaining troops. Secondly, my friend said that actions such as the one carried out at Mazar-e-Sharif, regardless of their rights and wrongs, their morality or immorality, can be successfully spun by our enemies into something that looks similar, from their point of view, to the way that 11 September looks to us.
	My Muslim friend made the trenchant point that the area in which our troops will serve, if they serve at all, is much more dangerous than places such as Kosovo or the Balkans because of the huge stores of available drugs, making for high tension and aggression, which we are unlikely to have experienced before. He was extremely reluctant for British troops to be dispatched until their mission, tasks and time limit were properly defined. Are we deploying or are we not? A small group of specialist Royal Marines have gone to Bagram airport. We thought that that was the start of the British deployment but, in fact, it was not. It seems that the Northern Alliance was less than keen to have our troops in the area.
	Is it premature to talk about deploying troops in the area while fighting is still going on? We are a leading nation in the campaign and while we may have made friends across the world, there is no doubt that we have also made enemies. Perhaps ours are not the troops to use while the situation remains volatile. Other European nations may be in a position to form a stabilisation force. Both the Germans and the French were extremely keen to prove themselves in Kosovo, once the fighting had stopped. The Germans have been reluctant to deploy their excellent special forces, the Kommando Spezialkrafte or KSK, in the present theatre; interestingly, when it comes to other styles of operation, they are rather less keen.

Jon Owen Jones: rose

Patrick Mercer: Forgive me, I shall not give way because of the time limit.
	We should remember that whatever happens to forces in that area, the benign atmosphere of Kosovo and Bosnia will not be duplicated. The Secretary of State for Defence recently told us about a new chapter in the strategic defence review. Interestingly, the Americans, having won a war in the Gulf in a non-traditional way, started to talk about manoeuvre warfare. The Americans, in their military doctrine, are now talking about more fire and less manoeuvre. An American diplomat, we are told, said, We don't do peace and the Americans have told us that they do not do mountains. What else do they not do? I choose to interpret their remark as, We don't do low-intensity conflict The British, however, do; we learned all about it in Palestine, Malaya, Oman, Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the north-west frontier, where we fought a low-intensity conflict from 1870 to 1940.
	Britain understands such problems and has very experienced troops who are good at dealing with them. However, I urge the Defence Secretary to make sure that the apparent gap dividing our special and specialist forces from our less special forcesour line regiments of cavalry and infantrydoes not grow. There is certainly a morale problem because soldiers are constantly deployed on tedious, undemanding and uninteresting operations, such as those in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia. Of course, they have their moments, but resentment is building towards the forces that constantly get the good jobs; that is their phrase, not mine. There is no reason why those forces should not be trained to serve alongside the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment, as long as they can recruit and are kept properly manned.
	I shall conclude by talking about the wider war. If we are serious about pursuing terrorism and taking the chances offered, we will pursue terrorism to the end: and we must pursue domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland as rigorously as we pursue terrorism abroad. The Foreign Secretary said:
	we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never happen again.
	We see American armed forces already forward: elements of the US third army in Kuwait and American special forces in Somalia, while the US State Department has a party in northern Iraq. We have a unique opportunity to root out terrorism. America needs our friendship, our experience, our excellent armed forces, and our balance and judgment, and we need to repay the debt to America that we incurred at least twice in the 20th century.

Bernard Jenkin: We are growing used to the salient points delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in our debates. Once again, he distinguished himself today in a short speech. I ask the Secretary of State to take on board the issue of the morale of non-spearhead regiments. If the spearhead role is to be expanded, as he suggested in his speech last week, perhaps it might be rotated among a large number of regiments to maintain the morale of the entire British Army.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I have little time and do not want to engage on that point.
	It would be wrong to debate defence and international terrorism without paying tribute to Field Marshal Lord Carver, who died recently. He was one of the most controversial chiefs of defence staff and made many enemies as well as friends during his distinguished career. Nevertheless, he was one of the greatest military figures of the post-war period. Even after the strategic defence review, we see his imprint on the shape of our armed forces and on British military doctrine. The nation owes him a debt.
	During this interesting debate, we heard a wide variety of contributions. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) made it clear that every inch of his being was against war, and in his case, that is a considerable number of inches. We enjoyed the guarded welcome that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) gave his new colleague, who will add more to the variety and colour in his party than to its unity. I shall return to the substance of the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson).
	I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who underlined the need for Europe to do more to support the campaign against terrorism, lest we become what Americans would see as ranchers with big hats and no cattle.
	However valid some of the comments from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall- Andrews)the House would be wrong to dismiss the need for a comprehensive approach to terrorismhe spoiled his case by some of the ludicrous over-statements that he made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made clear his grasp of military doctrine by referring to the successes of recent campaigns and how they were achieved. We should take seriously his thoughts about future doctrine against terrorism.
	The Foreign Secretary opened the debate by underlining the military, diplomatic and humanitarian breadth of the campaign and how that has been vindicated by eventsa point re-iterated by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East. That is why the Opposition have unequivocally supported the Government's conduct of the war against terrorism. In the words of the Prime Minister, addressed to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, yesterday, the progress of the war in Afghanistan is a
	tribute to America's leadership over the past few months and . . . also to their outstanding courage and wisdom.

Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for there to be a cross-party consensus on how to prosecute the war against terrorism, it is important that those on the Opposition Front Bench come to a settled view among themselves? As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said,
	Loose talk will undermine the coalition against terrorism.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the leader of his party, who wants to side with the US hawks, has said that countries like Iraq should not be let off the hook, and who wishes to take a stronger stance and commit himself to action against Iraq? Or does he agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said today that it is not helpful to speculate about what action may be taken in the future in relation to Iraq?

Bernard Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber throughout the debate, he would have heard the exchanges that took place earlier. I shall deal with those matters later, but it is wrong for him to look for divisions when they do not necessarily exist.
	We acknowledge the role played by the United Kingdom Government, which has been vital in ensuring that the campaign led by the Americans has been a genuinely international campaign. There are some in the House and many elsewhere, including many of our allies, who were faint-hearted or even opposed to the Afghan campaign. Like the Foreign Secretary, I hope that they will reflect on the jubilant scenes of liberation in Kabul last month, as well as on the successful destruction of the terrorists and their bases in Afghanistan.
	We must also pay tribute to the role played by American and British armed forces. Our thoughts are particularly with those who have been injured or killed and their families, those who may still be involved in operations, and those who have been kept waiting on stand-by.
	We continue to support the Government's wider campaign objectives for defeating international terrorism. Britain must continue its vital strategic role, binding American policy into a wider international framework and leading other nations in support of internationally agreed objectives. We applaud the Prime Minister, who assured Colin Powell yesterday that
	the battle against international terrorism does not end
	in Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) reiterated that point. The Foreign Secretary was a little shy of the point, but we know that he has given reassurances to the Americans.
	I share the caution of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but deterrence works only if one continues to show one's resolve to act and advertises it vigorously. Neither he nor the right hon. Member for Swansea, East ruled out the possible need for military action against Iraq or any other regime. That is the position of the Government and, in answer to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), of the Opposition. It ill serves the debate to present the US as some kind of Rambo itching to go on the rampage. We had all that blank-cheque talk at the beginning of the Afghan campaign and it was shown to be totally irrelevant.
	The question facing the Government is how best to pursue their objectives. After much confused reporting and the inevitable diplomatic to and fro, I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify exactly how the Government intend to conduct British policy in the weeks ahead. On Afghanistan, the Prime Minister announced yesterdaynot to the House of Commons, as Mr. Speaker indicated that he might have donethat the Government have
	indicated in principle a willingness to play a leading role in any UN-mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan.
	We recognise that the Government may feel the need to back that statement with the deployment of a British peacekeeping force, but I am bound to reiterate that we have grave misgivings about a major deployment. After all, on Monday the Chief of the Defence Staff questioned
	if we were required to trap our hands in the mangle of Afghanistan in order to facilitate the political process.
	Underlined in his text are the words,
	My aim, incidentally, is not to get fixed in Afghanistan.
	There is a host of questions about a possible British troop deployment that I doubt whether the Government will be able to answer today. They include the role that the US will play in that deployment; whether the US will guarantee unlimited air cover, even if it has none of its troops on the ground; who will provide the strategic heavy lift for initial deployment and extraction in an emergency, if necessary; and how it will be possible to deploy armoured vehicles or helicopters to provide mobility, or artillery to provide necessary protection.
	With such vast distances involved, only one airhead run by the US at Bagram and poor land communications, how could such a deployment be sustained and supplied, particularly if it becomes engaged in fighting? I do not invite the Secretary of State to respond to those points now, but merely raise them as questions. Some of them are very difficult, but they need to be addressed before he can make a decision.
	I urge the Secretary of State to answer now the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. In substance, they are as follows: what are the conditions that must be met before we can agree to deploy a peacekeeping force; what is the end state we expect we can achieve that will enable us to withdraw; and how long will it take to achieve that end state? The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked further questions that need to be addressed about the UN mandate, the role of the force in enforcing human rights and the rules of engagement.
	I urge the Secretary of State to clarify three further substantive points, all of which were raised by the Chief of the Defence Staff in his speech on Monday. I am bound to say that it was a very substantial, if delphic, speech. Indeed, when I compare it with the Secretary of State's recent speech, I wonder which of them might be the real Secretary of State. First, the Chief of the Defence Staff warned of loss of consent during a peacekeeping deployment. How can we presume anything but the most fragile consent for the presence of British forces? We should certainly congratulate all the parties that contributed to the success of the Bonn conference, which has resulted in an agreement on the establishment of a provisional Government in Afghanistan. If the task of the force is to stabilise that Government, how difficult will that task prove to be? Has not General Mohammed Fahim, the Defence Minister, already made it clear that he will welcome only a force of fewer than 1,000 personnel whose purpose is to guard Government buildings? He said:
	We do not need any international forces to establish our security. Our own soldiers can maintain security here.
	We have already seen the flurry created by the initial deployment of the Royal Marines at Bagram. We could so easily become the intruder instead of the invited guest. Will the Secretary of State address the question of consent for a British deployment?
	Secondly, why does the Secretary of State believe that UK forces are best suited to this role, given our long and unhappy history in Afghanistan and our current involvement in the war? I have no doubt of our forces' abilities and their keenness to get on with the job, but as other British forces continue to clear the caves of Taliban and al-Qaeda personnel, we are making enemies as well as friends in Afghanistan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out.
	Thirdly, the Chief of the Defence Staff spoke about choices on Monday. He said:
	We may have to decide whether to play to the strengths of our armed forces (and our corresponding value to the United States) in our ability and readiness to deploy highly capable forces quickly for offensive operations; or to commit to longer term nation building tasks that might reasonably be taken on by other, less capable, nations.
	That is the point that I would make to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). It seems strange that the Chief of the Defence Staff should ask such fundamental questions the day before the Prime Minister announced his intention in principle to deploy a peacekeeping operation. He was emphatic that
	we cannot dodge the UK's strategic choices.
	Will the Secretary of State explain what the Chief of the Defence Staff meant when he said:
	broader operations into regions that threaten UK policy goals will force us to choose between unconditional support to the coalition, conditional support and 'red lines' or selective supportor indeed lack of support.?

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am not giving way.
	What did the Chief of the Defence staff mean when he said:
	there will be some slight difference in emphasis in the approach between the United States and the UK?
	[Interruption.] Labour Members should stop muttering. It suggests that they are sensitive about some of the questions asked by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will clear up the confusion and make it clear that the Government have a clear strategy, and that he will be able to show that he can make the strategic choices to which the Chief of the Defence Staff referred. I hope also that he will make it clear that the United States and the United Kingdom continue to share the unity of purpose in the campaign against international terrorism that has served the whole world so effectively since 11 September.

Geoff Hoon: I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for his comments about the life of Field Marshal Lord Carver. I endorse them on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, which he served with such great distinction throughout his career.
	It is now three months almost to the day since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon and since we were forced to recognise what has become perhaps the greatest single challenge that we face: the threat posed by international terrorism. The House has rightly devoted much of its attention to how the Government and the international coalition have responded to that challenge. I especially welcome the expressions of support for the work of our armed forces. I shall return to their outstanding contribution to the continuing operations in Afghanistan in due course.
	I should like in particular to thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their comments. I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for his recognition that he is capable of error. [Interruption.] Indeed, he is capable of errors, which is still more significant.
	There have been some real achievements since the coalition began military action in Afghanistan on 7 October. We have seen the collapse of the sinister, barbarous and fanatical Taliban regime, which provided shelter and support to Osama bin Laden and developed a mutual dependence on his al-Qaeda terrorist networkan organisation that provides one of the most destructive threats to the world's stability, peace and prosperity.
	The Taliban regime that for so long kept Afghanistan in its oppressive grip has fallen and the Taliban have even been driven from their historical base in Kandahar. Only isolated pockets of Taliban and al-Qaeda forces now remain around the country, which is a vindication of the coalition's broad strategy of action in the diplomatic, economic, legal, humanitarian and military spheres to ensure that Afghanistan no longer harbours and sustains international terrorism.
	The fall of the Taliban is also a tribute to the United States leadership of the coalition. While the attacks on 11 September were an attack on the whole world, it was the United States that suffered most. It is right that it should take the lead in an act of self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter. It has led wisely and well. Although the United States has military capabilities that are unmatched by those of any other country, it also recognised that it could not act alone.
	Other countries also suffered on 11 Septembernot least our own; 78 British citizens died in New York. We, too, had to respond for our own safety and security, as well as to support our closest allyand support her we have. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have played vital parts in building and maintaining the global coalition against international terrorism, and our armed forces have operated alongside those of the United States from the start of military operations on 7 October.
	Few can doubt that the coalition's military campaign was essential in bringing about the downfall of the Taliban. Military action enabled the Northern Alliance, which was initially shocked by the assassination of its leader only two days before the attacks on 11 September, to go on to the offensive. With coalition help, the Northern Alliance drove back the Taliban on the ground.
	The military campaign helped to make the Bonn agreement and all that it promises possible. The agreement represents the foundation stone for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the basis on which that country, which has been almost destroyed by 22 years of war and the isolation that came with the Taliban regime, can be rebuilt and redeveloped. Our long-term aim was always to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community. We promised that we would not walk away from it and we are keeping that promise.
	At the start of the coalition action in Afghanistan, we set out what we were trying to achieve. Our specific short-term campaign aims were to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice; to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from posing a continuing terrorist threat; to ensure that Afghanistan ceased to harbour and sustain international terrorism and that it allowed us to verify that the camps where terrorists trained were destroyed; and, given that Mullah Omar would not comply with the American ultimatum, we required a sufficient change in the leadership to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism were broken.

Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for taking an intervention from someone who has not been called to speak in the debate. On 31 October, he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond):
	Our military action is focused on Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and their Taliban allies. No further action is in contemplation by the UK Government at present and it would not be productive to speculate on hypothetical situations.
	Bearing in mind the current situation off the Somali coast, will he explain whether the objective of the UK Government in their campaign against terrorism is being widened?

Geoff Hoon: I stand by what I said. That remains the focus of military action and the campaign's aims are the same as those set out in the letter. Matters have not moved on significantly since then.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend says that things have not moved on, yet the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have clearly stated that other countries are being considered for military action. Will the Secretary of State help us? Is the Ministry of Defence planning military action in Somalia, Sudan or any other country?

Geoff Hoon: Even before 31 October I said that a range of options and actions were being considered to deal with international terrorism. They are not only military. Obviously, military actions are my primary responsibility but, from 11 September, several actions have been taken against terrorist organisations. They include restricting their finance, ensuring that they cannot travel freely from one country to another and all sorts of pre-emptive steps in several different countries. They may well have frustrated terrorist activities; we may never know how many. However, significant action has been taken, and I emphasise to my hon. Friend the need to concentrate not only on military actions, important though they are in the context of my responsibilities.

Bernard Jenkin: I assure the Secretary of State of our continued support for his policy of not ruling out military action against any country that may harbour terrorists. That is consistent with the objectives that the Government set out earlier in the campaign.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for that observation.
	As I have made clear, we have taken action on several fronts. I have already mentioned diplomatic action to build international support for our task. We have also taken economic action to freeze the financial resources on which terrorists rely, legal action, which hon. Members have the opportunity to debate later, and humanitarian action. We never allowed ourselves to forget the need to help the ordinary people of Afghanistan, millions of whom have been forced to leave their homes and were facing famine. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) expressed that well.
	My specific responsibility is for the United Kingdom's contribution to the coalition's military action in Afghanistan. The fanatical intransigence of the Taliban regime left us with no option other than to use force. Our use of military force had specific objectives: to destroy the terrorist camps; to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden; to enable us to mount future operations in Afghanistan; and to maintain that pressure.
	The United Kingdom's armed forces have played a significant and essential part in the coalition's military action. They have done far more than many perhaps realise, taking part in direct strikes on terrorist targets and providing support for coalition partners. In the early days of the military action, the Royal Navy twice fired salvoes of Tomahawk missiles at terrorist training camps.
	Today, we have a large naval force in the Indian ocean; it is second in size only to the element from the United States navy. Led by HMS Illustrious, the United Kingdom's contribution includes the assault ship HMS Fearless, the destroyer HMS Southampton, the frigate HMS Cornwall, and seven ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Those ships form a base for operations by the 200 men of 40 Commando Royal Marines who have remained in theatre. We have also maintained a submarine presence in the region, which, with Tomahawk missiles, offers us another means, if needed, of striking at distant targets inside Afghanistan.
	We have also deployed UK ground forces deep into the country. The House will understand that I cannot give details of those operations, but I can say that our troops are there, actively participating in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorists.
	The presence of Royal Marines and, more recently, members of the Army and the Royal Air Force at Bagram airstrip has been vital. They helped to secure the airstrip for humanitarian aid and diplomatic flights. They also helped to secure our embassy buildings in Kabul. Royal Engineers, including explosive ordnance disposal experts, have been deployed to repair parts of the airstrip's infrastructure in readiness for the winter. I regret to say that it was one of those soldiers who was injured by a land mine last week.
	The presence of those troops at Bagram was essential to the success of the Bonn negotiations; indeed, they could not otherwise have taken place. Securing the airstrip and confirming that it could be used by military transport aircraft made it possible for the Royal Air Force to fly the Northern Alliance's delegation to Bonn to participate in the conference.
	The Royal Air Force has also played a major role. We have a number of fixed-wing aircraft in theatre. They include Tristar and VC10 air-to-air refuelling aircraft, Hercules transport aircraft, E3D Sentry airborne warning and control system aircraft, Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, and Canberra PR9 photographic reconnaissance aircraft.

Patrick Mercer: I wonder whether the Secretary of State would answer some of the questions that were posed about timings, missions, mission creep and all the other problems that are giving us such a headache?

Geoff Hoon: I shall deal with those matters in due course if the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience.

Bernard Jenkin: You have five minutes left.

Geoff Hoon: I have not got five minutes left. I want to set out in detail for the benefit of Conservative Members the extent of the contribution of Her Majesty's armed forces in the campaignnot all of it has been properly recognised, especially in the media. It is therefore important that Opposition Members listen with the patience for which they are renowned.
	I want to stress the importance of our air-to-air refuelling tankers and their role in coalition operations. They are essential to the operations of the United States navy's strike aircraft, on which so much of the coalition's air campaign has relied. Operating from its aircraft carriers, the US navy cannot fly tanker aircraft as large as ours. The US air force has many tanker aircraft but it uses a different technique, developed originally to refuel its strategic bombers. The RAF has therefore stepped in to fill that capability gap. The United States has welcomed its support, which it values enormously.
	A few statistics illustrate the importance of the RAF's tankers. They have flown more than 280 sorties, each lasting up to eight hours. They have provided coalition aircraft with nearly 10 million litres of fuel, which is no small task.
	The United Kingdom has also made a major contribution to the coalition's command and reconnaissance capabilities. Nearly 160 such sorties have been flown, some of very long duration. The E3D Sentry aircraft have flown missions of up to 14 hours controlling and co-ordinating coalition air strikes. The Nimrods have ranged far over the Indian ocean in support of the coalition's maritime operations. The Canberras, though long in service, offer an intelligence gathering and reconnaissance capability unmatched by almost any other aircraft in the world.
	We should not forget the work of our Hercules transport aircraft. I have already referred to their role in making the Bonn negotiations possible. Together with helicopters deployed aboard the Royal Navy fleet, they have flown sorties that provided essential support to our other operations, often in dangerous and demanding circumstances. Their success is a tribute to the skill and bravery of their crews.
	When we send our forces to Afghanistan, we ask them to take significant risks. The campaign has not been without cost. A small number of the United Kingdom's armed forces have been wounded or injured in Afghanistan, including the member of the Royal Engineers who was injured by a land mine at Bagram last week. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing them all a swift recovery. Of course, in thinking of our casualties, we should not forget that the United States, the Northern Alliance and the Afghan people have suffered many more.
	It is inevitable that the continuing deployment of British armed forces, especially when they are engaged in offensive action, should give rise to questions and anxieties. They have not diverted us from our course. We remain focused on achieving the aims that we set ourselves when we began military action on 7 October.
	We continue to work towards achieving our first and second campaign aims. Osama bin Laden and elements of al-Qaeda are still, as far as we know, at large and fighting. We have inflicted significant damage on al-Qaeda, but while it remains at large, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, it is a threat. We shall therefore continue our operations until that threat has been eliminated. I will not speculate about what that might mean, where future operations might take place or what form they might take. It would serve no useful purpose to advertise our intentions in advance. The focus of our activities remains Afghanistan, but no terrorists should assume that they can find safety anywhere around the world.
	We have achieved the fourth objectivea change in the leadership of Afghanistan. The thirdto ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorismis certainly now within our grasp. The Bonn agreement paves the way for cementing both those objectives.
	I have spoken about what the United Kingdom and her coalition partners have achieved so far. We must now consider how best to support the Bonn agreement. Twenty-two years of war have left their mark on Afghanistan. The destruction of much of its most basic infrastructure and the huge number of land mines laid during the war against the Soviet Union and in the civil wars that followed are obvious examples; less tangible, perhaps, are the effects on the Afghan people. A great deal of mistrust remains between the different peoples and political groups.
	The Afghans who negotiated the Bonn agreement knew all that far better than anyone else. They recognised that the new interim authority would need to establish itself as independent and not be seen as a creature of one faction or another. That is why they have agreed to and welcomed the proposal to deploy an international security force to Kabul.
	As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the United Kingdom has indicated, in principle, a willingness to play a leading role in any United Nations mandated security force in Afghanistan. No decisions have yet been taken. Before decisions are taken, we need to address a range of complex and detailed issues. We will be engaged in close consultations with the Afghans, the United Nations, the United States, and other countries that have expressed an interest in contributing troops to a security force. The detailed consultations and information gathering that we have in hand will provide the basis for decisions. That process will address the questions that the shadow Foreign Secretary very properly raised in his speech.
	The new interim authority formally takes office on 22 December. We must help to convince every Afghan to have confidence in that authority and in the Bonn agreement. We must convince them that this is the beginning of the rebuilding process, because the interim authority is just thatan interim authority. In six months' time, Loya Jirgah will appoint a transitional Government. We must convince all parties that their future lies in joining the political process and not in seeking a solution through the use of force.
	All this argues in favour of the eventual deployment of a UN-mandated force to provide the stability that is required for Afghanistan's future. We know that that will not be easy, and that many hurdles must be overcome. Not least of these is defining and agreeing with the Afghans what tasks would fall to a security assistance mission and, just as important, what tasks they would perform themselves. They clearly have responsibilities in all of this, too. In deciding to deploy an international security assistance force, the international community is offering a helping hand to a country and a people that have suffered too much for far too long.
	The events of 11 September required action in the short term to remove the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban and to help to secure the new Afghan Government, but those events also represented a challenge to our approach to defence and security. The strategic defence review laid a solid basis for the future evolution of our armed forces and how we might use them. The action we are taking in Afghanistan is largely possible as a result of the work done during the SDR.
	The United Kingdom now has significantly improved capabilities and is well placed to take on asymmetric threats, such as those posed by international terrorism, but it is only right that we should look further at the conclusions of the strategic defence review, in the light of the threat that is posed today by international terrorists. The House will be aware that we are doing just that.
	We are engaging not in a new strategic defence review, but in a new chapter of the review, building on the earlier conclusions. We want to ensure that the United Kingdom has the defence concepts, capabilities and forces that we need if we are to deal with threats of this kind and this scale. We are therefore looking closely at our plans and programmes, to be able to add capability where it countswhere it makes a differencebecause we must look beyond what is happening today and examine the possible longer-term implications.
	The success that we have enjoyed in the campaign to date and the fact that we can look forward to achieving our remaining aims with confidence ultimately depend on one thing: the excellence of the men and women of our armed forces. I cannot overstate what they have achieved and the spirit in which they have achieved it. I said at the start of my speech that they deserved every word of the praise offered by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We owe a great deal to the men and women of our armed forces, as well as to their families. It is our responsibility and privilege to make sure that they are properly equipped and properly organised to do the excellent job that they do. We are determined to make sure that that continues.

Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States, the Ayes were 333, the Noes were 146, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Orders of the Day
	  
	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 43, which is to be considered today. If the House agrees to this Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the convenience of the House, it would be helpful, given that we have groups of Government motions and amendments from the other place, if you could tell us what will happen when we reach each of the cut-off deadlines, in terms of what could be voted on, what must be voted on, what will be taken separately and what will be taken together. That would spare us the confusion that we, not surprisingly, got into last week, when we got into slightly difficult procedural areas.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that there could be quite an involved answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. May I suggest that he confers with the Clerk at the Table, so that we can proceed with the business of the day?

Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise your advice to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to go and talk to the Clerk, but may their conversation be broadcast to the rest of us, so that we can have some understanding of exactly what voting there is to be and when, and what we are voting on?

David Blunkett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might be able to help here. I hope that there is consensus on being able to vote on each collective part of the Bill as returned to us from the House of Lords, so that, on the cut-off points, we are able to vote on the substantive main amendment with those taken with itso that there is an understanding of the terms in which we are doing thatrather than spend all the time having to vote on individual items. We would be very happy to accommodate that with all Members of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: All motions to disagree and Lords amendments will be voted on separately.

Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that you might just have answered my point of order. However, although I am sure that the Home Secretary was trying to be helpful to the House, it is perhaps a failing on my part that I did not understand exactly what he was saying.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Could I perhaps clarify my response? All motions to agree will be taken together, and amendments to Lords amendments will be taken separately. Motions to disagree will be taken separately as well.

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the advice that you have just given to the House. Are those votes going to be taken at the conclusion of each section, or are we going to have a mammoth voting session at midnight?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Under the programme motion that was agreed, you will see that there are set times for those votes to be taken.

Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. So far as I can see, that means that there are potentially at least seven votes in the first section, which could take at least an hour and a half. We have only an hour and a quarter to debate the whole of the next section.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is a consequence of the programme motion that was agreed to?

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is my last point of order. I am trying to be helpful to the House in responding to the Home Secretary's helpful intervention. Certainly, those on our Benchesand I think that I am right in saying the Conservatives, toowould seek to test the opinion of the House on an issue at the beginning of a group, rather than detain the House by voting on all the subsequent matters. We will chooseI hope with the compliance, as it were, of the Governmentthe substantive main point, and seek to divide on it, and then move on to the next section.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise just to confirm that that is also our intention.

David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had better confirm that that is my understanding as well.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we are now all in agreement.

Clause 17
	  
	Extension of existing disclosure powers

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 7, line 7, after authority insert
	to a relevant public authority.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following: Lords amendment No. 6 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 38 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 43, Lords amendment No. 44 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 47, Lords amendment No. 48 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 49 to 64.

David Blunkett: First, and in the interests of brevity, I shall describe the way in which we want to proceed this evening and subsequently in the House of Lords. Many things have been said outside the House, but the tone of debate on Second Reading and in Committee was one of constructive dialogue among people rightly querying, scrutinising and, where appropriate, opposing. Tonight and tomorrow, I want to proceed in the same spirit from the Government Front Bench to seek to allay fears and to find common ground where it exists, disagreeing only where we genuinely do so.
	There have been misunderstandings from time to time, but the Human Rights Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, individual Members and parties have made suggestions here and in the House of Lords that we have taken on board, whether on sunset clauses or reviews or on reasonableness or links with terrorism. We have adjusted the justice and home affairs provisions. We have included consultation and, where appropriate, affirmative resolution. We have sought to accommodate where we can the genuine concerns of Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords. I intend to try to do so as we proceed tonight.
	I must make it clear, however, that no one would understand a position whereby we failed to take the necessary action and, having so failed, were later proved to have failed to provide the necessary protections. That is the spirit in which I intend to proceed.
	At the end of September, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out why, on part 3 and parts 10 and 11, we need to be clear about the interrelationship of one set of actions with another:
	Global terrorism and organised crime are now inextricably linked. The boundary between terrorist activity and criminal activity has become increasingly blurred. The fingerprints of terrorism lie on the drugs dealt to our children on street corners as surely as they lie on the plans to destroy the World Trade Centre . . . We need to combat the link between international crime and terrorism.
	I agree, which is why we ask that parts 3, 10, 11 and 13, with the provisos that we shall deal with tonight, be returned to the House of Lords in a form that restores the previous intentions.
	I ask the House to reject Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8, because they would confine what is possible to what
	directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security or to a terrorist.
	We do not believe that it will be possible for people to do their jobs appropriately if those confining mechanisms are put in place. Our law enforcement agencies, the services that provide support to them and our security services have given us a clear understanding that if the Lords amendments are approved by the two Houses, they will simply not be able to do their job. On part 10, the Lords amendments as framed would set the situation back rather than help people to do a better job. I give an example on part 3 in relation to the interchange of information, the knowledge that exists and the way in which people react.
	Take an employment agency that is being inspected. The inspectors come across information relating to an individual seeking to take up a particular, sensitive job. It is discovered that that person has claimed large amounts of benefit. Let us call him Mr. AQ, just as an example of someone who might seek to do that. According to the framing of the House of Lords proposal, it would not be possible for that information to be shared. No one outside the House would thank us if we so restrained information giving and the sharing of concerns that Mr. AQ continued to draw benefits. It would be illegal to pass on the information required.

Richard Allan: I fail to understand the Secretary of State's reasoning. If it were suspected that Mr. AQ is involved in terrorism and a threat to national security, under the terms of the Lords amendment the information could be shared. On the other hand, if we wanted to investigate Mr. AQ for benefit fraud, surely the correct way to deal with that would be through benefit fraud legislation, not anti-terrorism legislation.

David Blunkett: But we would not know; that is the point. A Mr. AQ is investigated for a range of activities, including massive benefit fraud, and discoveredhe may be discovered, let us put it no more strongly than thatto be involved in or even wanted by security and intelligence services elsewhere. That is just a possibility, which even those on the Liberal Democrat Benches might concede to be fairly close to reality.

Alan Beith: Does the Home Secretary not realise that a wide gate is opening, through which comes this proposition? Anyone suspected of any crime, or indeed anyone against whom there is evidence of any crime, may have applied to them the full rigour of measures that we could not justify for inclusion in normal criminal legislation. There is just a possibility, unsupported by evidence, that he might have a terrorist intention, but surely that is not the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable the authorities, if they have such a suspicion of a terrorist involvement, to bring into play powers not normally thought proportionate to the crimes involved.

David Blunkett: I would not dream of doing to the right hon. Gentleman what Lord Ackner did to me on radio on Sundaypatronise him. Let me put it this way: the interchange described by the Leader of the Opposition on 26 September is the one that I am referring to, and I want to send it back to the House of Lords for reconsideration. I have described a tightening of the noose.
	Take Customs and Excise rightly intervening on those who seek to smuggle, be it drugs, people or tobacco. It suspects that someone is undertaking a crime, but it needs to be able to share information, even if it has no proof. Remember that, in those particular circumstances, judicial review and the normal protections of the legal fraternity fall into play. There may be no suspicion of terrorist activity, but Customs and Excise needs to be able to share information with law enforcement agencies, knowing that a great deal of drug smuggling and other activity leads to the funding of terrorism, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out.

Mark Fisher: Can the Home Secretary explain how a suspicion may be arrived at if there is no proof of any sort against such a person?

David Blunkett: Obviously, it must be late in the day and late in the week, because I am struggling to understand why my hon. Friend feels that a body involved in such dealingsas Customs and Excise is day in, day outthat had a reason to pass material to the police would do so other than because it suspected that something was amiss. [Interruption.] No, no. The restriction being imposed, if my hon. Friend would kindly read what the Lords have done, restricts to the point where a body has to suspect that a terrorist act is in the offing.

Mark Fisher: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: In a second.
	I know that my hon. Friend is trying to help me and to ensure that the position is clarified so that the law enforcement agencies can do their job effectively, irrespective of whether he feels that there should have been a separate Bill. I refer him to schedule 4, which contains a list of disclosure powers that would allow investigation, all involving a different time scale and a different premise. Before the Lords amended it, the clause sought to harmonise arrangements for the sharing of information in a way that would assist the apprehending of terrorists. That is where we started on Second Reading, and it is where we are today.
	I think that we have made some progress, in that many who were worried are now less worried. In the Lords great confusion arose, rather than clarity, but we have sought to deal with that by discussing the data protection provisions that can be brought into play. It may help my hon. Friend and Opposition Members, however, if I say what I think we should also do.
	As well as referring to the Data Protection Act 1998, we have indicated that the Human Rights Act 1998 would protect people from unjustifiable intrusion. Becauseas has just been illustratedthere has been so much worry and suspicion, my colleagues and I feel that we should ask our colleagues in the Lords, when they consider these measures tomorrow afternoon and evening, to clarify what we believed, and still believe, to be automatically the position under the Human Rights Act: that proportionality should apply in relation to the use of the powers we are discussing, so that a judgment can be made on whether those using them have taken into account the proportionality of their suspicions.

Norman Baker: Does the Home Secretary accept that there may be disclosures, or sharing, of information of which an individual has and can have no knowledge, and that that individual will therefore be unable to invoke the Human Rights Act?

David Blunkett: Yes. That is why my amendment helps: rather than having to apply the Human Rights Act retrospectively, or rely on agencies' familiarity with the terms of the Act, people would be able to understand the meaning of proportionality if it were built into the legislation and the guidance issued to such agencies.
	We want to ensure that the Bill stands the test of time, and later we will discuss how Members might be accommodated in that regard. Given that we are trying to be helpful, it would assist us if others were helpful to us. I understand the suspicion that is felt; I understand why it is right for every Member, whatever side he or she is on, to ensure that the Executive are challenged and scrutinised. Given that I am trying to be helpful, however, I hope that my efforts will be reciprocated, because tomorrow night we must make decisions that will indeed stand the test of time.

Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary knows that I broadly support what he is trying to achieve in this regard, but I want to ask him a question that has, in part, already been asked from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	Lords amendment No. 6 concerns national security and terrorist activity, which, as the Home Secretary says, are frequently linked. However, it uses the word suspects, rather than referring merely to evidence. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is not going too far in opening the gate wider, and whether his lawyers may not have lead him to believe that the word suspects is wide enough to encompass what he is trying to achieve.

David Blunkett: As I have said, we are building the concept of proportionality into the Bill. There are many suspicions; the action taken on the basis of those suspicions is the crucial issue, given that we are authorising action through the law. I think that if we can coalesce in ensuring that the suspicion leading to such action is proportionate, we can allay some fears.
	We are resisting amendment No. 38, which relates to part 10, and Nos. 40 and 44, which relate to part 11. Our reasons concern the interface between what is needed to tackle terrorism directly and the picking up, as it were, of lines that lead to an understanding of how to pursue terrorists through a knowledge of organised crime and the actions of our services.
	Some Members have expressed concern about the extension of powers. As I said in Committee, we have reflected and have sought to allay their fearsfor instance, in regard to the use of Ministry of Defence and British Transport police in areas outside their immediate jurisdiction. We have provided for the involvement of the Police Complaints Authorityin future, the independent Police Complaints Commissionin the event of problems, and the Bill already provides for considerable restraints.
	The House of Lordsinadvertently, of course; no one would have done this intentionallyhas made the use of the MOD and British Transport police even more difficult than it is now. This week a British Transport police officer went beyond his jurisdiction at Finsbury Park station to help a serving Metropolitan police officer who was being attacked by a man with a knife. Both were quite seriously injured. British Transport police helped to restrain the man, who is now in custody.
	No one, whatever their feelings or suspicions, would want us to constrain the ability of British Transport police to take such action; nor would they want the MOD police to be constrained if an aircraft crashed outside their jurisdiction, and they were called upon to help. Those are the terms in which we describe what we seek to do in regard to the extension of powers. There will clearly be some restraint, and some reference to the jurisdiction of either the emergency or the local police force.
	I feel that, in trying to ensure that people did not go too far, the House of Lords has gone much too far itself. Let me give another example relating to parts 10 and 11. Those who have investigated these issues have no doubt that credit fraud, for instance, is a favoured method of fundraising among the terrorists groups with which we are dealing: that is a simple, known fact. Under our proposals, someone who believed that fraud had been committed at a restaurant but had no reason to connect it with terrorism would be able to share information. The enforcement agencies and security services are familiar with such activities, and with the networks involved in them, and can immediately pick up what traditional forces cannot do without the passing on of such information.

John Burnett: I have the impression that the Home Secretary is digging a bigger hole for himself. The security services must liaise with the police. They must be able, in camera and in confidence, to give the police information. The police will then have a suspiciona legitimate suspicion.

David Blunkett: If the amendments were passed, that would be the case if they believed there was a terrorist threat, but not if they had suspicions that led to an understanding of a terrorist threat. [Interruption.] It is no use the Liberal Democrats giggling[Interruption.] Laughing, then. I mistook a gurgle for something else. [Interruption.]

Mark Fisher: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: Not for the moment.
	It appears that the Liberal Democrats were not laughing, giggling or gurglingin which case they were expressing amazement that it might actually be desirable to link one set of information with another in order to apprehend those whom we are discussing.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that we are trying to agree on the terms of reference. We understand that credit fraud, for example, may be linked with terrorism. Our proposition is that the suspicion has to be that there is a direct or indirect link and that, provided it comes within that ambit, the amendment passed in the Lords would be sufficient. Will he consider that? We would reasonably consider the point that he has made that the Bill should not further restrict organisations such as the MOD or the transport police, although that has never been the intention. If he thought about the one, we would certainly think about the other.

David Blunkett: I am continuing to think. I have already indicated to both the shadow Home Secretary and to the hon. Gentleman that I will continue listening and thinking for the next 24 hours until we can secure agreement on the Bill between the two Houses, but it is not possible for someone dealing with the apprehension of and therefore the passage of information on drugs to know that there is an indirect or a direct link until that is investigated by the enforcement agencies. That is the nub. How can they have a suspicion that that particular activity leads back to the al-Qaeda, to the GIA or to one of the other major international terrorist outfits? They cannot
	Amendment No. 48 relates to part 13. We seek to include paragraphs (d) and (e). The convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters would be a third pillar measure under subsection (1). It is a simple facilitation of the sharing of video information, making that easier and increasing the speed with which it can be done, paragraph (e); relates to the Schengen acquis, which includes Norway and Iceland as well as the European Union. I hope that over the next 24 hours we will be able to persuade both colleagues in this House and those in the House of Lords that those two additions, together with the sunset clause at the end of June, all the provisos that we have built in and the ability to test that we are not sneaking something through, get the matter right.
	Let no one misunderstand what we are doing. I have read articles and heard speeches that have linked issues that are not in the Bill with what we are debating tonight and have debated over recent weeks. I have heard people link the Bill with the European arrest warrant time and again. Even the shadow Home Secretary, for whom I have much time and who has been honest on these matters, did that in his article in The Guardian on Friday. The Daily TelegraphGod bless it; it does not normally pick things up from The Guardianseemed to repeat the calumny, although not in his name, on Saturday. An enormous amount of suspicion has been generated about what the Government may or may not be seeking to do. What we are certainly not trying to do is delude anyone tonight.

Oliver Letwin: I unreservedly welcome the tone in which the Home Secretary has addressed the House. We started these debates with six big issues, shared between the Liberal Democrats and ourselves. On at least two and a half, arguably three, the Government have made sensible movement and we have arrived, I think, at an acceptable solution.
	We have three to go. Those relate to seven of the 126 clauses of the Bill. It is important to remind ourselves that we are arguing only about seven of 126 clauses. If we continue the argument in the spirit that the Home Secretary exhibited this evening, we are likely to arrive at a resolution.
	I want to dwell on the logic that the Home Secretary was exposing and to try to demonstrate why Conservative Members are still unconvinced, but before I do so I should say that his offer to move towards the application of a proportionality test is taken in the spirit in which it was clearly intended: as a serious and constructive move. We will need to study whatever amendment is tabled to that effect in the Lords. There are present in the Lords people of great legal learning who will no doubt be able to advise that House and us about whether it will indeed have sufficient protective effects to make it an acceptable variant. If it is, we will accept it. We do not wish to press the Government to the point of breaking if we can avoid doing so.
	It will help materially in advancing that debate if I expose as clearly as I canmany speaking in interventions have already begun to do soexactly why we are unconvinced by the Home Secretary's logic. We absolutely accept that there are links between terrorism and other forms of crime. The Home Secretary has rightly quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's remarks about that. We also accept that when the security services, the police or both have a suspicion that someone is involved in terrorism. it may be extremely important to them to be able to trace through a daisy chain of minor circumstances patterns that will enable them to apprehend terrorist groups or particular individuals linked to terrorism.
	Moreover, we acceptalthough this is not a point that the Home Secretary has made, it would be a legitimate onethat from time to time, the Al Capone strategy may be sensible. It may be sensible to apprehend a terrorist, a suspected terrorist or someone suspected of links to terrorism on the basis of some minor charge discovered by ferreting out some other aspect of that person's activities, even where it is not possible to prove that they are linked to terrorism. It may be possible to prove that they have engaged in some other minor felony. We accept a chain of logic that runs from the suspicion by the authorities that someone is in some way linked to terrorism to the disclosure of a wide range of information from 81 different agencies and quangos to the authorities about that person. Exceptional strains and risks demand exceptional measures.
	The Lords amendments work on exactly that logic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) pointed out, the Lords amendmentsI take the example of amendment No. 6 but many others are to the same purposesay specifically that if the authorities believe or suspect that the disclosure may be of information that directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security, the floodgates are open. They do not need to believe it. They need only to suspect it. They do not require the suspicion to be reasonable. They merely have to suspect it. They do not need to suspect that the person is a terrorist. They do not even need to suspect that the person is directly linked to terrorism. They merely need to suspect that the person is indirectly linked to terrorism. That is about as wide as their lordships could have cast the net.
	I still fail to understand what must be genuine logic on the part of the Home Secretary's advisers, otherwise I cannot imagine why he would be going to an awful lot of fuss and bother to defend the proposition. I genuinely cannot understand how, if the trigger for opening the doors to such massive disclosure is merely the necessity that the authorities suspect an indirect link to terrorism, there can be any real restriction on their activities.

Denzil Davies: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, but in all fairness the Home Secretary asked a question towards the end of his speech, I think in relation to amendment No. 6 and the word suspect. It may be difficult, or so the argument goes, for a public authority that is not involved in the murky world of pursuing terrorists and suspected terrorists. That public authority may not have any information at all on the basis of which to suspect anything. Is that not the problem that the Home Secretary was trying to point out?

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had many arguments about constitutional points; we have mainly been on the same side. He needs to look at the next passage of amendment No. 6. It does not require the authority that holds the information to engage in the disclosure voluntarily. It rightly permits relevant authoritiesthe security services and the policeif they have such a suspicion, to request the information; indeed, it gives them the right to demand that information in circumstances in which they have that suspicion. Whereas the Home Secretary would be right if only the first part of Lords amendment No. 6 existed, the argument does not run in the light of the second part.
	I do not make that argument in an attempt to create a confrontation where one may no longer exist. If the Home Secretary, regardless of the validity or otherwise of his logic, can produce a proportionality test that fully convinces their lordships and ourselves that no individual will suffer a trawling exercise by the authorities when he or she is being pursued for a minor offence, possibly committed in another country, we may be willing to accept the clausedespite not understanding the logic. However, it would be helpful if between now and tomorrow the Government could for the first time explain why the logic that I have just exposed is not fallacious.
	The Home Secretary made the argument that the amendments made by the Lords to part 10 would have the effect of restricting the powers of the Ministry of Defence and British Transport police more than was the case before the Bill was introduced. If that is so, it is unintentional and I accept that it is not something that we wish to legislate to do at present. I hope that over the next 24 or 36 hours we will find a solution to that problem.
	The Home Secretary did not rehearse the history, which is well known to him, of how we came to this set of amendments on part 13. I shall briefly rehearse it, in order to explain our current position. We began with a proposition that any decision reached at intergovernmental level on criminal justice under the framework of the third pillar of the EU could be enacted in British law through an order subject to a 90-minute debate in Committee. The Home Secretary is right to say that I have argued in public that that could have meant that the European arrest warrant was adopted by those means. I have always tried to acknowledge that the Home Secretary gave us an assurance that the European arrest warrant would not suffer that fate, because it would be introduced in the extradition Bill. What concerned my colleagues and me was that the Home Secretary would have taken a reserve power under this Bill and, if we were to seekas we willto amend the extradition Bill to restrict greatly the scope of the European arrest warrant, he could have told us that we were being naive because he had that reserve power to enact it in a 90-minute debate and that, if necessary, he would use it. That position would have been intolerable. Luckily, the Attorney- General has now given an assurance from the Dispatch Box in the House of Lordswhich is as binding and solemn an assurance as one can get from the Governmentthat that will not happen. As the Home Secretary said, clauses 110 and 111as they appeared in the Lordshave been limited to June 2002 and our fears about the future are removed. That is a major step forward.
	Since that time, the Government have introduced amendments to Lords amendment No. 48 that would have the odd effect of reintroducing, in paragraphs (d) and (e), the convention on mutual assistance and certain of the Schengen acquis provisions. I was not sure that I fully grasped the full implications of the Home Secretary's statement, although on the basis of intimations in the other place I hope that I have rightly discerned that when the Bill returns to the Lords we may see paragraph (e) removed and/or some firm assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Schengen acquis will also be brought in through the extradition Bill instead of by order and a 90-minute debate. If that assurance is given, we would not seek to overturn the amendment in the other place. If that assurance is given tonight, we would not seek to overturn it tonightnot that I suffer from any illusion that we could overturn any amendment in this Houseso we would not seek to vote against it.
	It is critical that we should have an equal assurance on the question of the Schengen acquis to the one we have had on the European arrest warrant and on all decisions that may be made under the third pillar beyond June 2002. If we can rest easy on that point, we will have achieved a major improvement in British law from the position we faced on Second Reading. I hope that we will also be able to achieve such improvement in relation to the disclosure provisions. I do not want to have been part of a Parliament that brought about a situation in which a British policeman had the capacity to obtain every record on an individual because of a traffic offence that could have been committed in Baltimore, Ohio. That would not be tolerable and we need to change it. If the Home Secretary finds a way to change that, we will accept it.

Norman Baker: I, too, welcome the Home Secretary's constructive comments and the approach that the Government have taken to the Bill in the past 48 hours. It is welcome that he wishes to find common ground and we and, I believe, the Conservatives share that aspiration. The Home Secretary said that he has tried to be helpful and I hope that he will feel that we are also trying.
	The Government are entitled to respond to the international situation and to introduce legislation to deal with unexpected and emergency threats from terrorism. That is common ground. If the Home Secretary can achieve a Bill that will do that, he will have the support of the House and the country. The dispute, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out, is on a relatively small area of the Bill. The question is whether in the legitimate and correct pursuit of legislation to deal with terrorism it is appropriate to include provisions that would effectively give a green light to excessive state interference in the lives of ordinary citizens. Seeking to suspend some of them is an odd way in which to seek to protect our civil liberties. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on that paradox. The drugs taken to cure an illness sometimes cause complications worse than the original illness. Reactions must be proportionateand the Home Secretary used that word himself tonight.
	I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the hon. Member for West Dorset a failure to understand why the Home Secretary is determined to introduce measures that do not deal with terrorism or the threat to national security directly or indirectlywhich is a wide targetbut would address any criminal activity. For example, clause 102 states that the code of practice could contain provision
	for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime.
	It does not refer to terrorism or threats to national security, or even to serious crime, which might deal with people who smuggle cigarettes.

David Blunkett: I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. Have we not now agreed to the code being made on an affirmative order so that it can be examined automatically by both Houses? Secondly, have we not tried to show that data cannot be heldheld, rather than just exposedon the presumption of the holders that they can distinguish whether it will be required for terrorism or for crime? The provision is as broad as it is because the data have to be accessed when there is a suspicion of terrorism. If the data were not held, access would not be possible.

Norman Baker: We welcome the Home Secretary's approach with regard to the affirmative order, as I hope I made clear earlier. However, in respect of the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the Bill states that part of its purpose is the detection of crime. The use of the word purpose has wide connotations.
	I thought that the Bill's purpose was to deal with the terrorist threat, not the threat of crime. That is the difference that divides Government and Opposition Members. The Government want to reverse amendments made in the Lords, but there are serious worries that the Bill would place us in contravention of article 8 of the European convention because of the range of offences covered and the lack of statutory criteria to guide decisions. Another problem is the lack of procedural safeguards.
	The Home Secretary mentioned the proportionality test. It was a helpful suggestion, and shows that he recognises that proportionality has to apply in these matters. However, the human rights legislation already contains the necessary proportionality, so with the best will in the world, I cannot believe that the Home Secretary is adding much to the existing arrangements. At best, he is spelling them out.
	It has already been said that the Lords amendments are quite wide ranging. Amendment No. 6 states that the information
	may relate directly or indirectly to any risk of national security or to a terrorist.
	In an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked what reason there might be for taking advantage of the measures that the Home Secretary wants in the Bill if there is no suspicion.

Michael Weir: I am confused by the argument about disclosure. If there is no question of suspicion of terrorism, what is the trigger for disclosure of information? If organisations and people properly investigating terrorism act on the precautionary principle, might not they be unnecessarily swamped by disclosures if the trigger is not inserted in the Bill?

Norman Baker: I absolutely agree. The Home Secretary should be seeking a rapier, but he appears to want a blunderbuss. That may lead to the intelligence services being swamped, and require them to undertake inquiries with police forces that will detract from their proper work of dealing with terrorism. The proposal may therefore be counterproductive and ineffective.
	Last week, the Home Secretary challenged the police service to improve its performance and raise detection rates. The worry is that the police, in looking for every means to do that and ensure that criminals are brought to justice, will be tempted to fish for information from various authorities if they do not have enough evidence otherwise. No hon. Member would support such fishing expeditions. Moreover, there is a possibility that other authorities, including the security services, will be asked for data without much justification.

Simon Hughes: Last year, when we debated the Bill that became the Terrorism Act 2000, we agreed to give the authorities much wider powers than normal to deal with serious activity. Many people outside the House are worried that it would be unhelpful and invasive of citizens' liberty to equate serious crime that is terrorism- linked with the motoring offences referred to by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), or with sex offences or public drunkenness. All such matters are subsumed under one head, but does my hon. Friend not agree that they should be distinguished one from another and placed into categories such as serious, terrorist-related, and so on?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is right. Everyone wants to deal with the threat of terrorism. People are prepared to accept that that may require measures whose impact on civil liberties is in excess of what we would normally condone, but they are not prepared to accept measures which go far further and which might impact on people with no connection with terrorism whatever.
	The Home Secretary must find a way to ensure that people who need to be apprehended and prevented from carrying out acts of terrorism or from posing a threat to national security are dealt with effectively. However, he must do so without infringing those civil liberties that the House is seeking to defend by introducing the Bill in the first place. I do not think that the Home Secretary has got that balance right yet.

Richard Allan: I am very interested in my hon. Friend's argument, but the question of workability was raised earlier and it is important. Does my hon. Friend share the concerns about clause 102 that have been raised by communication service providers? They fear that the Government will end up with legislation that will be unworkable for the security forces, as it would require very close co-operation between technicians and Government in dealing with large amounts of data. Under the present proposals, that co-operative spirit does not exist.

Norman Baker: The Government have proposed a code of practice and changed the terminology used in the Bill. It is sensible to produce a draft code of practice in advance, and I give the Home Secretary credit for that. However, it is worth noting the many objections expressed by the communications industry, and the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI is normally the Government's best friend, but it objects to some parts of the Bill. It is unusual to receive representations from the CBI in connection with a Home Office Bill, so it is clear that the matter is one for business as well as for the civil liberties groups that have contacted us at great length.
	The worry is that, without any suggestion that national security or terrorism is involved, almost anyone suspected of any activity can trigger the type of investigations involving data sharing that more properly relate to national security and terrorism.

Beverley Hughes: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully, but will he confirm that he realises that we are talking not about the power to access information, but about clarifying the legal position of the communication service providers in retaining data? As for workability from the point of view of the communication service providers, will the hon. Gentleman explain how the link with national security will work to help those providers decide to retain certain data? How will they distinguish data that might be shown to be linked to a national security inquiry, and other data that might be shown not to be so linked?

Norman Baker: Opposition Members do not draft legislation. We draft amendments and point out faults in the Government's proposals. It is for the Government to produce measures that are proportionate and meet the objectives that they have set out. Opposition Members' duty is to point out disproportionate measures that could have a huge impact on civil liberties. It is up to the Government to respond to the concerns expressed in this debate, among Labour Back-Benchers, in the other place and elsewhere that the Bill is disproportionate and could have deleterious effects.

Beverley Hughes: I should like to press the hon. Gentleman a little further on the second question that I put to him. Representations received by the Home Office from communication service providers deal with the question of how they could make work measures that are limited only to national security. The Bill gives service providers a legal power to retain data, but their problem is how to distinguish data that might be shown to be linked to national security from data that are not. The providers say the amendment is not workable.

Norman Baker: The Minister advances an odd proposition. The Government must produce a code, and they must consult to ensure that it meets the objections that the Minister has expressed. She proposes that, because one person may be caught in a particular net, we should catch all information relating to any person who happens to be near that net because that person may fall into the category that the she has set out. That is an odd suggestion. It confirms the unease felt by many hon. Members that the Government are less than focused when it comes to the question of who should be caught by the Bill.

Simon Hughes: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am a lay person on this issue. However, if I were a user and transferrer of data, I might one day send entirely innocent communications that were totally unrelated to crime and the next day send information that might be related to crime. How would the providers be able to distinguish between what I do today and what I do tomorrow? It is not a practical proposition to expect them to be able to do that. The burden on the Government is to show that their proposal is practical, but we have not been persuaded that it is.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and the Government have to respond to it over the next 24 hours or so if they are to convince us and others that theirs is the right way forward.
	I do not wish to take much more of the House's time, because I know that other Members wish to speak. However, the House of Lords has done us a favour by considering the Bill in rather more detail than we have had the time for. If the House authorities had provided more time for Second Reading and the Committee stage in this House, we would not have had to consider the range of amendments that the Lords have made to the Bill. I hope that the Government will learn the lesson that they should give the Commons more time for Second Readings and Committee stages and should not rely on the House of Lords to do the work that should be done initially in this place.
	I hope that the Government will also reflect on the fact that the new and modified House of Lords, which is the Prime Minister's own creation, has inflicted a huge number of defeats on the Government in relation to this Bill. Even though there was agreement on the principle as to where we want to get to, it inflicted those defeats by very large majorities. I hope that the Government are listening to thatI think they areand will reflect on the specific, focused points that the House of Lords has made. We are not convinced that it is appropriate to have such a wide-ranging definition in the Bill. We therefore support the Lords amendments and we hope that the Government see their merit.
	We welcome the movement that the Government made in the House of Lords on third-pillar matters and particularly on sunset provisions and on the improved and more specific wording. We, too, are at loss as to why the Government have tabled amendments to the Lords amendments and, in particular, want to insert paragraph (e) to Lords amendment No. 48. Such provisions are too far reaching and are not merited under the emergency provisions in the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, I hope that the Government will consider withdrawing that provision.
	We support the Lords amendments. We hope that the Government will take a few more steps towards making the Bill the one that we all want it to beone that deals effectively with terrorism, but without taking away our civil liberties.

Mark Fisher: I join others in thanking the Home Secretary for his constructive and courteous attitude. It set a helpful tone for the debate and recognises that both sides of the House agree with his objective, which is to get at terrorists and ensure that they do not go undetected. That aim unites us all.
	When the Minister responds to the debate, will she say something more about the relationship between suspicion and disclosure? Surely, for a variety of reasons, if suspicion is to be targeted on the objective that we all share, it has to be based on evidence. If it is not, it will be a loose and free-ranging suspicion that will lead to many of the unfortunate and ineffective consequences that other hon. Members have described.
	Such an approach involves not only a good principle of legal practice but, as Opposition Members have said, makes good practical sense. Of course, the Home Secretary made the perfectly fair point that the relationship between crimeand sometimes even misdemeanourand terrorism is complicated and that the one may lead to the other. We all agree that there is a link that may be helpful in detecting terrorism and in bringing terrorists to justice.
	When the Home Secretary gave the example of credit card fraud, he appeared to encourage the idea that anyone who identified such fraud should bring it to the attention of the security forces. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, that would lead to the most absurd situation in which the police and the security forces would be deluged with unhelpful and unfocused information that would all have to be sifted just in case those committing fraud were involved in terrorism.
	Surely, to provide practical help to the security forces and to the police, there must be a more evidential base to suspicion than simply the existence of a misdemeanour or crime. Unless we support the Lords amendment and focus more on the problem than the Bill's wording does, we will not assist the security forces and the police to focus their concerns on the things that matter and not on generalised suspicions.
	I may have misunderstood the position. As the Home Secretary knows, I am not a lawyer. However, because of that real danger, I intend to support the Lords amendment unless he can reassure the House and those of us who still have reservations about, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, relatively few aspects of the Bill. We need to be reassured that the provisions for suspicion focus on the main objectives and will not lead to a trawl through many types of crime in a way that will not help the security forces to achieve the aim that we all share of identifying terrorists and bringing them to justice.

John Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot live in a Stalinist world in which every Tom, Dick and Harry reports this, that or the other? Something must precipitate the inquiries. There must be suspicion and that suspicion will almost always be related by the security forces to the police, who will then be able to act according to the terms of the Lords amendment.

Mark Fisher: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, as I have nothing more to add, I shall draw my remarks to a close.

Beverley Hughes: I wish to reply to some of the points that hon. Members have raised. Clearly the common thread in these Lords amendments is the extent to which there is a link between terrorism and non-terrorist crime. However, the fettering of the proposed powers in the Bill to deal with only those crimes that relate to national security or terrorism would be a serious impediment to the police and the other law enforcement agencies getting at terrorists.

Simon Hughes: We just do not accept that the current terms of the Bill, with the width of the door through which people can go, can be fettered in the way that the Minister suggests. When we considered the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government never made the case that any crime could be linked to terrorism. It is a totally new argument that does not appear to be supported by the facts.

Beverley Hughes: The Government disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. The key issue is the point at which public authorities, communication service providers or the police have to make the decision about using the powers in the Bill. They will or will not be able to foresee a link between terrorism and crime. The point that the law enforcement agencies strongly stress is that, at that stage, faced with information or a body of evidence, an assessment is often extremely difficult, until pieces of information from different sources start to be put together and the picture of the jigsaw that might point to terrorism can emerge.

Simon Hughes: indicated dissent

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the amendments would prevent the pieces of that jigsaw from being put together. They would prevent the accumulation of data that would allow the authorities to begin to see a link with terrorism.

Mark Fisher: Surely the Minister is simply describing good police detective practicesomething that already happens in criminal law and in the detection of other terrorist acts. It happened throughout our attempts to prevent terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is good detective practice to bring together disparate pieces of information. From what the Government have said, they have not demonstrated that new powers are necessary.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is correct: that is the premise of good detective work. However, without access to the informationor if the information is not volunteered, as many of these provisions would allowthe piecing together of that information and the execution of that detective work cannot take place, or cannot do so within a time scale that would be beneficial in the investigation of terrorism.
	In relation to the disclosure powers in part 3, I remind Members that the provision merely harmonises existing provisions in the Acts listed in schedule 4. Some of the provisions relating to three particular Acts already allow for disclosure for criminal investigations: the Utilities Act 2000, and two measures passed under Conservative Governmentsthe Water Resources Act 1991 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Those measures already allow for disclosure at the investigative stage for criminal investigations.
	The provision is not new; it merely provides that the measure will pertain throughout those gateways. Instead of having to wait for the start of proceedingsas is the case with some of the other provisions in the scheduleit will be possible for information to be passed throughout all the gateways. The matter will already have been debated by the House and agreed procedures will already have been laid down in statute for the passage of that information. There will be a process of harmonisation, enabling those Acts to be used to share informationnot necessarily at the proceedings stage, but at the investigation stage.

Oliver Letwin: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government's proposed paragraph (e) to Lords amendment No. 48 on the Schengen acquis will be removed to the extradition Bill?

Beverley Hughes: We have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are considering it carefully, and we may be able to make some progress on that point that we can announce tomorrow.
	In relation to parts 10 and 11, I refer again to some of the points I made to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and remind Members that we are not talking about access to communications data but the power of the providers to retain that data and

Richard Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Beverley Hughes: I am sorry I cannot; I have only one minute to conclude my remarks.
	Providers need the assurance that if they decide to retain data, the data will be legally retained, so the Lords amendment is not workable because it will create confusion, and communication service providers will not have the legal assurance that they need and that the clause is designed to give them.
	In relation to part 10, we want the police to have the judgment of hindsight. It is not possible for them always to know where something will lead, so it is important that they have powers to investigate and identify criminals even when they cannot be absolutely certain that there is a terrorist link.
	It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day].
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendment No. 48 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 6:
	The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 8, 38, 40 and 44 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 7, 39, 41 to 43, 45 to 47 and 49 to 64 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Clause 21
	  
	Suspected international terrorist: certification

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 10, line 38, leave out an international and insert a.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 20, Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and Government amendments (a) to (f) thereto.

David Blunkett: Part 4 rightly received a great deal of attention in Committee in this House and in the House of Lords. It has also been debated publicly at considerable length, and understandable concerns have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Bill's passage.
	Considerable progress has already been made in clarifying the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and its relationship with other aspects of the judicial process and with the Home Secretary's role in certification. We seek tonight to find a way forward to complete the unification of the two sides of the House and secure the good will of those of all parties about the way in which the procedures should operate.
	All parties have expressed the wish to see the threat of terrorism and those who pose a threat internationally and whom this country currently hosts dealt with decisively. We have disagreed about how far we should go in deratifying the European convention and on the removal of people to countries where their lives and well-being might be at risk. Concerns have been expressed that any kind of detention, as an alternative to removal, is a threat to human rights. We have sought together to try to find a process that gives sufficient guarantee of due process to enable people to feel that, in the difficult circumstances that we face, we have found a suitable avenue for achieving the proportionate balance that we have talked about over weeks and months.

George Osborne: Part 4 rests on the derogation from article 5 of the European convention. Has the Home Secretary read the comments of David Pannick QC, one of the country's leading barristers, that the derogation from article 5 is unlawful because, first, the European Court of Human Rights is unlikely to accept that we face a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and, secondly, even if it did accept that, the Government will not be able to establish to the Court's satisfaction that detention without trial is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation? Can the Home Secretary assure us that David Pannick is wrong in his interpretation of the law, because if he is correct part 4 is at serious risk of collapsing?

David Blunkett: I have seen David Pannick's comments. I have a great deal of respect for his judgment and the Home Office has made use of it on several occasions, but we do not believe that he is correct, nor do any of the lawyers we have consulted. Subject to the passage of the Bill in the next 48 hours, we shall, as we said we would, deposit the derogation at Strasbourg. We believe that that step will complete the necessary process.
	In two sets of discussions with United States Attorney-General John Ashcroft today, it was made wholly clear that the international threat remains. Although we have made enormous progress on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, we have not undermined that network, the tentacles of which stretch across the world. John Ashcroft described the process as stretching from those who have a conception of an idea, through those who plan based on the idea, to those to execute it. All three steps can involve different groups, in different parts of the world, operating in different spheres and at different times. That is why we believe that the threat that became apparent immediately after 11 September has not diminished.

Jeremy Corbyn: No one in the House is in favour of terrorism or terrorist attacks, but many of us believe that the criminal law should be used to apprehend people who commit or who are planning to commit criminal acts. Will the Home Secretary explain why this country, almost alone in Europe, is proposing such draconian measures and derogation from human rights conventions when other countries believe that their criminal law is sufficient to deal with the threat?

David Blunkett: As I said on Second Reading and in CommitteeI regret the need to repeat myself, but doing so is necessary because we must take a measured approach this eveningnot only do we accept that there is an international threat and that we are in danger of hosting, as many have accused us of doing, those who engage in organising, funding or perpetrating international terrorism, but we believe that we are at greater risk than many other countries because of our declared and clear alliance with the United States, for which that country's people are deeply grateful, and because in the minds of those who have engaged in terror we are associated with the international action taken against the terrorists.
	We need to update our preparedness, our legislation and our actions against terrorismeven in a way that has been denounced by other countries, including those to which my hon. Friend refersand to reflect the nature and the response to the threat to the United States and elsewhere, albeit not to the extent that the United States has found necessary. On Second Reading, in Committee and on several other occasions the House has reflected on the fact that we have not suggested the sort of measures that the United States has felt it necessary to take in terms of detention or military tribunals in order to deal with the perceived threat.

Mark Fisher: Members on both sides of the House agree that we are under threat from terrorismthe whole world is under threat from terrorism, this country perhaps more than most others apart from the United States. We were under threat from terrorism before 11 September, and that threat may have increased since, but that is not the test for derogation. Mr. Pannick and others who support him say that the test is not whether we are under threat from terrorism, but whether the threat is so severe that it threatens the life of the nation. Nothing the Home Secretary has said on Second Reading, in Committee or tonight takes that necessary step to extend the threat of terrorism, which obviously exists, to a threat that threatens the life of this nation. That is a far more severe test, and not one that the Home Secretary will find it easy to demonstrate.

David Blunkett: I say with great sadness that I fear that I shall not be able to convince my hon. Friend. We know what happened on 11 September, and I think that most people are aware of the time that it takes to organise acts of terror, some of which have been detected. I have mentioned previously those in Jordan and the proposed attack on the American embassy in Paris. There are also the well-known Tanzanian and Kenyan US embassy attacks in 1998. Such attacks take a long time to prepare. They are organised and funded on the basis that they will disrupt, as we saw at the World Trade Centre, both the economic life and activity of a nation. There is not simply the act; there is also the knock-on or spin-on effect on the life of the nation.
	If people do not believe that what happened on 11 September has not had a dramatic effect on the life of the United States, on its economy and on the economy of the world, they have been living in a different world from the one that the rest of us inhabit. It has had that effect, and everyone knows that. It has changed the perspective.
	I cannot guarantee that there will not be an attack on the United Kingdomnor can I say that there will be such an attack. We started the debate on the basis of whether we take decisive action of the sort that is proposed. It behoves us to consider whether we believe that we would find what we are proposing acceptable if a major attack took place.

Norman Baker: The test that has to be satisfied to allow derogation to be justified is a high one, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has said: the essence of the life of the country must be under threat. The right hon. Gentleman said on 15 October, more than a month after the terrorist attack on New York, that there was no immediate threat to the United Kingdom. Of course terrorism exists, but there is not an immediate threat to the essence of the country.

David Blunkett: I am in a cleft stick. In seeking to ensure reassurance, which I have done to the best of my ability over the weeks after 11 September, and to ensure that the life of the nation was not immediately disrupted by a change in people's behaviour, it should not be assumed that people did not believe that there is and remains a threat to the life of the nation.
	I am posing the question whether people believed on the 12th, or believe it now, that there was or is a threat. I believe that the threat has not diminished. I take the same view now as I took the day after 11 September. The question that must be answered is whether people think that what we are seeking to do under part 4 is justified if a substantial attack took place now. I suggest that they would. Taking action to preclude that threat to the life of the nation has to be the right thing to do, rather than taking the action after the life of the nation has demonstrably been threatened.

David Winnick: The only issue on which I voted against the Government in this context is judicial review. I shall listen with great interest to what my right hon. Friend has to say about that. Is he aware that in the previous Parliament I asked his predecessor a number of questions at meetings of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about those who are alleged to have been much involved in terrorism abroad, who were using Britain as a safe haven, but who for various reasons could not be tried? It would be naive of us not to acceptthere is one such case in the United Statesthat there remain a number of people who, in my view, are certainly a danger to communities abroad and to Britain itself.

David Blunkett: I agree entirely; that is why we must take the action that we are proposing. In two seconds, I shall deal with the issue of judicial review, which has strongly exercised my hon. Friend and many others, including Members of the House of Lords.
	First, however, we are endeavouring to answer the question of how to deal with the situation, either by withdrawingtemporarily or otherwisefrom the European convention on human rights and taking action to remove people elsewhere in the world, or by removing the power to detain or remove people in circumstances in which the usual court proceedings, because of the risk posed to the security and intelligence services and those working for them, do not allow us to present that evidence. We are dealing with that tonight.
	We have chosen the road of proportionality and the middle ground. People have accepted that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, unanimously set up by both Houses, was an appropriate avenue for presenting such evidence in the circumstances that I have just describedit would not be appropriate to present such evidence in open courton the certification of the Home Secretary, to remove someone, either on security grounds or because their presence was not conducive to the public good. Now we are having to decide whether, when we cannot remove someone without putting their life at risk, that mechanism is appropriate to detain them, albeit with constant reviews of the position and given the fact that that the individual can leave the country, should they find a safe place to go.

Douglas Hogg: I wish to raise two matters with the Home Secretary. First, Government amendment (a) states that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will be deemed
	a superior court of record.
	What does that mean, other than that some proceedings will be subject to recording? Secondly and more substantially, the Home Secretary will know that, under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, there are special procedures that, for example, enable the tribunal to hold that some parts of the evidence should be withheld from the detained person and, indeed, that he or she may not necessarily be present during the proceedings. Is there anything in the Government amendments that changes the position under the 1997 Act? I am not aware of any such provision.

David Blunkett: I was about to deal with the issue of making SIAC an administrative court and superior court of record.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman described the situation correctly. Elements of presented evidence are withheld, but not from the advocate appointed on behalf of the individual.

Douglas Hogg: He is appointed, not chosen.

David Blunkett: He is appointed for that purpose, although the individual can choose legal representation. As I have said in previous debates, the individual can, if they wish, retain that advocate in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords
	I have it on good authority that those who have expressed the gravest concern about judicial reviewLaw Lords and ex-Law Lords in the House of Lordsbelieve that the designation of SIAC as a superior court of record and administrative court will meet their concerns because its procedures will provide the equivalent of judicial review.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I assist? A court of record simply means that the proceedings are recorded with a view to them subsequently being subject to scrutiny on appeal or by way of precedent. As there is no appeal from SIAC except by way of law, and as it is not a court of precedent, what is the point of making it a court of record?

David Blunkett: It establishesbeyond peradventure, as Lord Heseltine would have saidthe position, the status and the record, which can be carried forward. My hon. and learned Friend is always helpful to me. I know that he comes into the Chamber for that purpose alone. I look forward to his being helpful to me again and again, for many years to come.
	The right of appeal on those aspects that would be appropriate to the Appeal Court of the House of Lords will be granted. I take the word of those who, over many generations, have been engaged in the law that that overcomes their concerns in respect of the issues that we have debated at lengthfor example, how we deal with a review of a review, where the evidence that must be adduced and presented must be in the same form, with the same complete security, as in the previous review.
	That is why we argued the case in terms of whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission needed a new SIAC to review it. If that means designating a superior court of record and confirming the level of the judiciary involved, as in a Crown court, so be it. In other wordsjust to show my hon. and learned Friend that I have some grasp of the lawthe Crown court cannot be judicially reviewed as a Crown court.

Michael Weir: In Scotland any decision by a Government Department can be subject to judicial review by the Court of Session. Under the new legislation, will the matter be decided only by SIAC, and will the Scottish court no longer be able to carry out a judicial review?

David Blunkett: On that very issue, I was pleased to help one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who participated in the debate in Committee, having missed Second Reading because she was in her constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not otherwise engaged at the time, as it would be a shame to go over the explanation again. I explained at enormous length the operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and its jurisdiction. I do not want to be unhelpful, but as any hon. Member who was present on Second Reading and in Committee will recall, we took every intervention. Whatever else hon. Members disagree about, they cannot deny that we have spelled out in words of one syllable how SIAC works.
	In the present context, we are seeking to deal with the situation of people who would otherwise have been removed on the certification of the Home Secretary, who appeal through SIAC, and who are to be detained if they cannot be removed. We are trying to ensure that the process works.

Oliver Letwin: I hope that the Home Secretary will accept my question as genuinely helpful. Does he agree that when the noble Lord Donaldson accepted the amendment, the view that he tookhe holds a special position in our judiciarywas that the effect of denominating SIAC as a superior court of record would be to turn it into a clear part of the High Court and give it all the powers of judicial review that would otherwise pertain to the High Court, but with the special procedures of SIAC in place, so that the information made available by the security services would not be compromised when it was given to the court?

David Blunkett: That is entirely correct. I am grateful for the succinct presentation, as ever, of the way in which Lord Donaldson and others who have examined the provision understand it to work. It is on that basis that we are resisting amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and seeking to gain agreement on the way forward on this specific issue. I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House will remain convinced of the position that they held from the beginning, which is that this part of the Bill should not be proceeded with. We must continue to have a genuine disagreement on that point. However, we have done our utmost to secure the agreement of those who understood the reasons for the provisions, but were concerned about the nature of the process.

Simon Hughes: With regard to court procedures, first, does the Home Secretary accept that it is possible at any level for courts to sit in secret and that the Government can at any stage issue a public interest immunity certificate, which means that some evidence or information may not be revealed? Secondly, one of his concerns may be that judicial review will often be used or often be successful, or that it will be abused and cause delay. The evidence is that it succeeds about one in 100 times, and it has never succeeded in relation to SIAC so far. If he has that concern, does he accept that one could time limit a period by which a judicial review could be made, in order to deal with any possibility that it might be used as a delaying tactic?

David Blunkett: Of course, the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question relates directly to the second part, as one would agree to the second only if one accepted the first, which involves the holding of proceedings in camera in a normal court and the evocation of public interest immunity to the point where not only the evidence that is presented would be protected, but those presenting it and those working on behalf of the security services. The security services made it absolutely clear to meI do not think that I am breaching any confidence in saying thisthat they would bring no cases forward if we used the normal court system and attempted to use public interest immunity.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Blackmail.

David Blunkett: It is not blackmail. If I am asked about why we are not using public interest immunity and the potential for part of the evidence to be considered in camera, there is no point in shouting from the Back Benches when I give the answer. The security services do not believe that it is possible to hold in camera a case in which those who have not been designated under security legislation to be able to hear and take evidence would inevitably have to do so. In the past, evidence on public interest immunity has led judges to rule that those who were prepared to give evidencesuch people will often have been working on behalf of the security services at tremendous risk to their lives in circumstances that none of us would ever want to experiencehad to present themselves and be exposed to the accused person. In such circumstances, those people can be committed to almost certain death.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I shall do so, because I hear total disbelief from behind me. I do not hear that in front of me.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I have provoked that question, but let me be provoked by my own side for a moment.

Jeremy Corbyn: There is some disbelief on the Benches behind the Home Secretary. I find it astonishing that he should tell the House that the security services are not prepared to bring forward evidence if there is any danger of it being heard in a court, even if it is in camera. It is extraordinary that the security services, which are largely unaccountable to anybody, should decide what the policies of this country should be. Apparently, they are now even deciding what its law should be.

David Blunkett: First, the security services did not determine the law. They indicated to me the circumstances in which they would be able to present particular types of evidence, which is precisely why we have been debating this whole issue. We have almost gone full circle. If somebody does not accept that there are circumstances in which evidence that has been adduced cannot be presented in a court, even if it is under a public interest immunity, and if they do not accept that view in respect of the level or threshold of evidence and the way in which it is presented, in relation to what was adduced in the Rehman case that we debated previously and affirmed by the House of Lords in the middle of October, they will not believe me. They will not be committed to following that process. Some hon. Members would like to undo the result of the vote on establishing SIAC. It was established on the basis that it could take evidence in the way in which I am describingon appeal against certification by the Home Secretary, whoever he or she may be, in relation to removal on ground of security or because a person's presence is not conducive to the public good. The evidence, to be adduced and presented in precisely the way in which I am outlining, was acceptable for those purposes. That was demonstrated by the Mullah Rehman appeal and affirmed in the House of Lords. Those who believe that all that is wrong will believe that I am wrong.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: I shall, but I want to finish the point. Let us consider the difference between what has already been agreed and carried through and my proposals. We will use the same process but the outcome is not removal in cases where the person's life would be at risk, but detention with review. The process, with the sort of evidence and advocacy that has already been established, has only one different feature. We cannot remove people because, rightly, we will not breach article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and we must therefore detain them.

Douglas Hogg: I am sorry, but I must revert to a point that genuinely troubles me. The amendment designates SIAC as a court of record. In answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the Home Secretary said that that effectively gives SIAC the powers of judicial review. Clause 26 properly and fully sets out the commission's powers. They are not the same as the power of judicial review. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the statement that SIAC will have the powers of judicial review with the statutory powers for which the Bill explicitly provides. How does the Home Secretary reconcile those positions?

David Blunkett: The process is to review the certification signed by the Home Secretary. Those who seek judicial review of SIAC are trying to review the decision of a court. The decision to designate SIAC as a superior court of record affirms that. I shall rest my case so that other hon. Members can speak because we have only one fundamental disagreement. The process is already laid down, albeit that the outcomedetention rather than removalis different from the original intention. Our disagreement is about the process. I understand why people do not believe that it is acceptable, but I disagree with them, because it is the only way in which to deal with the current circumstances.

John Burnett: Is the Home Secretary minded to extend the rights of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal so that matters of fact and law can be appealed against? In such circumstances can the Court of Appeal sit in camera and use the special advocate procedure?

David Blunkett: I am confining the amendment to the designation of SIAC. The right of appeal on a point of law remains, as described earlier.
	Ultimately, we are debating whether hon. Members believe, in the circumstances, that it is appropriate to detain people using the evidence, the threshold and the process of SIAC in the way that was intended for removal and will now be used for detention when we cannot remove.

Simon Hughes: One of the terrible consequences of this procedure is that we have an hour in total for this debate. It is no criticism of the Home Secretary to say that 35 minutes of that hour has been taken up by his explaining the Government's view and answering questions. However, with the best will in the world, it is impossible in an hour for the House to do justice to the arguments about the fundamental issue of keeping judicial review, or to consider the alternative before us in the form of a Government amendment whose genesis lies in a proposal by a former Lord of Appeal and Master of the Rolls. One of our complaints is that, because of the speed of the process, this legislation has needed to come back so that this issue can be revisitedas the Government now acceptand many other interrelated issues as well.
	This group of amendments covers three issues, the last of which is judicial review. Government amendments (a) to (f) offer an alternative to the Lords' removal of the original provisions stating that one could not go to judicial review in relation to detention without trial. In relation to amendments Nos. 9 and 13, we are grateful that the Government have accepted the amendment tabled by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberal Democrats and of Irish Members of Parliament, which defines terrorism in the same way, whether it is national or international. That concession is gratefully received. It would have been nonsense to define separately whether someone's motive was connected to activity within or outside the UK or part of it. We also welcome the improvements in the procedure relating to the timetable for review and other matters contained in amendments Nos. 14 to 20.
	The nub of this issue, however, is judicial review. I want to tell the House why we should agree to accept the Lords' decision to remove the provisions that suggest that one cannot go to judicial review, and not to accept the alternative. I do so respectfully and carefully, conscious that the amendments come from Lord Donaldson, whom I respect. This is his attempt, supported by others, to find a way through the middle, but I do not acceptI believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House share my viewthat it meets the test, or that the amendments satisfy the concerns that have been voiced abroad in the House and beyond.
	We would be wrong to derogate from the European convention on human rights and from the Human Rights Act 1998. Nothing that the Home Secretary has said about the issues on which we agreefor example, that there remains an international threat, which I accept without qualificationpersuades me that that takes us into the criteria for qualifying for derogation.
	The two tests have been set out: there has to be a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and the resultant action has to be action strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. Like David Pannick, whom we all respect as an authority, the Liberal Democrats' view is that those tests are not met. I honestly believe that, if the Government proceed, they would be at risk of being found to have breached their qualifications for derogation, if it were tested either in a domestic court or in the European Court of Human Rights.
	The Home Secretary has been both courteous and conciliatory today, as he has on almost every other occasion that I can remember. I hope that he will accept that, just because my colleagues and I have a different view, it does not mean that we are not of good will on these issues. We shall, I anticipate, reach a different conclusion, but I hope that he accepts that we do so for the same reasons that the Labour party in opposition, on many occasions, perfectly honourably reached a different conclusion on emergency legislation from the Tory Government.
	So that there is no doubt, I repeat that we do not accept that detention without trial for people who are not British is a necessary step when others have not been attempted. We should first try to charge and prosecute. Secondly, if the security services cannot proceed because of the rules of evidence, we could amend those rules. Thirdly, we might consider the procedures of the court. Only when we have tried and failed with those, and they have not been considered in the context of the Bill, should we contemplate the further step. We are not persuaded.
	We do not go along with the Conservative view that it would be right to have a reservation in relation to the European convention on human rightsthat is one of our few disagreements on the substance of the Billso we offer a different solution, which we think could be achieved by procedures in the domestic courts.
	One reason for believing that our case is justified is that no signatory country to the ECHR, which goes wider than the EU, has yet seen fit to say that it must go down that road. I am not privy to whether those countries might do so, but it is significant that, three months after 11 September, not one other ECHR signatorythat includes all Council of Europe member countrieshas changed its position on detention without trial. For me, that is not the persuasive argument, but it is additional strong evidence that we should take into account.
	As I want to allow other colleagues to speak, I shall list my reasons for hoping that the House accepts that SIAC, even as amended by the alternative suggested in the Government amendment, will not work. If hon. Members have any doubts, I refer them to the first day of debate on Report in the House of Lords and the speeches of Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my noble Friend Lord Goodhart and Lord Donaldson. I quote Lord Mayhew, but each speech includes such phrases:
	My submission is that in the Bill we should not be driven to surrender a precious safeguard against the abuse of power, especially when there is no need for it. If one did so, one could be sure that such a precedent would soon be followed because, in my experience, all departmental Ministers resent judicial review. That in itself is a good reason why it should be cherished.[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 997.]
	That may apply in only one case in a hundred, which is Lord Donaldson's view, and Lord Mayhew may accept that the SIAC amendment route is the right way forward, but that does not pass the test of principle. We must not remove judicial review not only because that in itself is wrong, but because it would make for a better argument for removal in lots of other cases, at home and abroad.

Oliver Letwin: We agree on so much, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that Lords Donaldson and Mayhew are minded to accept the Government amendment because it does not preclude judicial review? Indeed, amendment (a)(4) specifically provides for a superior court to question the legal proceedings and makes it possible by denominating SIAC part of the High Court. That is precisely why, in the opinion of Lords Donaldson and Mayhew and of my party, the amendment no longer constitutes a devastating precedent of the kind that so many noble Lords rightly referred to in that debate.

Simon Hughes: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has approached the Bill and I understand the argument, but we have not reached the same conclusion for the following three reasons, which I shall describe.
	First, it strikes us as illogical to try to exclude judicial review in this case, outside the new process that is being suggested, when it was not excluded in the earlier concept in use context of SIAC. Secondly, as was said by many speakers on the Cross Benches and on both sides of the House of Lords, one can never tell what procedural or other irregularity one might wish to question. It might be an executive decision by the Home Secretary to issue a certificate to detain someone, oralthough I accept that this would be much less likely if the proposal were accepteda procedure further up the chain. Certainly, howevermy hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about thisit cannot be the case that a process that might preclude an appeal on the basis of fact and allow it only on the basis of law would not allow an adequate remedy.
	Finally, we think that, for reasons of precedent and principle, if the measure adds nothing it will either never be used, or be used so rarely that it will exist merely as a reserve power to be employed in exceptional circumstances. It cannot be necessary to preclude an eventuality that we may or may not be able to anticipate.

Oliver Letwin: That is the nub of the issue. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in that same debate in the Lords, which I attended myself, Lord Donaldson agreed that a judicial review by the High Courtnot SIACwould necessitate the adoption of SIAC rules, because it would otherwise be impossible for the security forces to reveal to, for example, a barrister appointed by al-Qaeda, who might be an al-Qaeda adherent, information on which the reasonableness of the Home Secretary's decision could alone be judged? Did it not become clear at that point that the distinction between the High Court's adoption of SIAC rules and the redenomination of SIAC as the High Court was, in fact, no distinction?

Simon Hughes: If the amendment would make SIAC a court rather than an administrative tribunalit appears that it might do so, but I put this neutrallythat is certainly an improvement. It is interesting that we are creating what is effectively a new administrative court, or at least a new administrative division of the High Court, at this stage rather than next year, when we shall look at the review of the court systemalthough the process is not entirely satisfactory.
	Colleagues in the other place who are more eminent than me in terms of practice in these mattersincluding Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Lester of Herne Hillhave suggested to me that there may be circumstances that are not covered by the new, enhanced power of SIAC to review cases. It is also felt that the onus must be on the Government to show that there is a public interest against an ability to opt for the conventional occasional judicial review.

Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman help me to understand what Lord Donaldson proposes? Is he saying that, having been designated a court of record, SIAC will be able to constitute the location for judicial review of decisions that it has already reached? Is that not legally tautologous?

Simon Hughes: Courts can do that. If the hon. Gentleman, who is very assiduous, reads the speech made by Lord Donaldson on Report, he will see that the Court of Appeal has sometimes been called on in the middle of its hearings to perform a sub-exercise involving judicial review of an issue raised in another court. Bizarrely, that can happen.
	There is a wider point, howeverthe point on which our analysis differs with that of Lord Donaldson. For reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. MarshallAndrews), merely conferring a power to record proceedings, and conferring greater status, will not necessarily deal with every eventuality. Furthermore, it will not confer all the powers that may be needed to check the decisions of the Secretary of State in regard to detention, and the processes thereafter. It will not cover all the safeguards connected with human rights that a citizen might needsafeguards relating to time, language translation, legal aid and advice and, most important, the certainty of knowing the case against him or her at every stage. We believe that that can be dealt with adequately either by the court going into secret sessionmy hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about that tooor by the issue of a public interest immunity certificate or the like.

Douglas Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman would accept, one of the problems is that SIAC has a power to withhold from the detained person pieces of evidence. As I understand the procedure contained in the Bill, no one will be in a position to review whether SIAC's decision to exclude bits of evidence from the detained person was good or bad. That seems to be fundamentally unjust.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is strong. As the Home Secretary said, one court will not judicially review another court, so it cannot do that. An important evidential point about the defendant meeting the case against them may never be able to be looked at again. Those seem to be among the reasons why the procedure does not give assurance.
	I am conscious of the fact that normally the reviewing court, whether it has examined local council decisions or other decisions, has accepted the view of the initial court, but just occasionally it intervenes and says that that court got it wrong: procedurally and evidentially, there was an unfairness. It is that overriding final judgment that is being limited, which seems unjustified, even in exceptional circumstances.

Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at least the proposition of Lord Donaldson, who I repeat is in a privileged position in talking about this matter, that under subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) to Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22, the court of appeal could question the proceedings of the commission in respect of the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? That is critical.

Simon Hughes: Again, we are showing the weakness of the timetable. There is a limitation in subsection (4) of the amendment to the original Act setting up SIAC, which I shall read into the record:
	A decision of the Commission shall be questioned in legal proceedings only in accordance with
	the appeal provisions set out in the original Act, or as to whether derogation was acceptable or not. Those are the two cases.
	The fact that we are arguing about whether the alternative gives the guarantees is in itself a final argument for asking the House to reject it. Is it worth risking being found in breach of European law, being out of step with all our other European colleagues and someone being treated unjustly to devise a new procedure? Existing procedure perfectly adequately answers the question. As I hinted earlier, we are willing to accept that judicial review could have a time limit, and that evidence can be protected so that secrecy can be maintained, but the Liberal Democrats are not persuaded that, for this occasion and in this way, either for precedent or principle, judicial review should be written out of this part of British legislation. In the most extreme cases, we need the greatest protection most.

Denzil Davies: I shall be brief. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be surprised to hear that someone who is sitting behind him and who is a lawyer supports him in the belief that he has gone as far as he possibly can in a very difficult situation. I promise him, and my hon. Friends around me, that I will never do it again.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is the last time.

Denzil Davies: It is indeed.
	I find myself in some difficulty in that I appear to be at least indirectly endorsing the views of Lord Donaldson. I was in the House a long time ago when he existed in a different incarnation. Perhaps he was not quite the civil libertarian in those days that he has become since, especially when he was made Master of the Rolls.
	I shall not follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) down the by-ways of the European convention. If the matter goes to court and if Mr. Pannick represents those who take it to court, the matter will have to be considered. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has gone as far as he can. Judicial review is a splendid procedure and nobody can be against it, especially lawyers, but it is not perfect. It cannot consider the merits of a case, merely whether a decision is lawful or unlawful. It can also consider whether a decision is reasonable, in the sense of whether a reasonable person would have come to that decision.
	The difficult immigration case of Chahal went eventually to the European Court of Human Rights, which trenchantly criticised the UK system of judicial review. However, I do not suggest that that case is on all fours with the present situation. Nobody likes special tribunals but SIAC was set up to try to deal with the real problems of the Chahal case. On balance, I am not sure about the court of record and from my law exams, I seem to remember a concept that lawyers called an error on the face of a record. If SIAC had experienced a procedural problemfor example, evidence had not been properly consideredbut not a problem of substantive law, that would be an error on the face of the record and could be considered by the Court of Appeal, which may only consider appeals on points of law. That applies also to errors on the face of the record, which could mean a procedural or evidential error on the part of SIAC. I do not like that approach, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary probably does not like it either.

Douglas Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman conceding, broadly speaking, that even if there is a process of judicial review, that would not address the question that I raised with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) of whether the decision of SIAC to exclude evidence from the detained person was a reasonable or unreasonable decision? That decision, which goes to the root of justice, could not be the subject of any justiciable appeal.

Denzil Davies: One would have to consider each particular circumstance, but the exclusion of evidence could well be seen to be a considerable procedural defect and would constitute an error on the record.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cited Lord Donaldson's speech in the other place. One of the most interesting speeches in the other place was made by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has considerable experience in these matters. I read his speech carefully and he concluded that judicial review would do no harm and was of symbolic value. Symbolism is important, as is doing no harm, but we are legislating in a difficult area and we should not put into legislation, even with the best will in the world, something of which the best that can be said of it is that it would do no harm. I apologise for saying so, especially as a lawyer, but on this occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just about got it right.

Oliver Letwin: It is absurd that we are left with a minute to discuss this point further, but we are. I shall ask my hon. Friends to abstain in the Division on this matter. We shall see what the other place makes of the proposal. The debate there will be longer, and there are people in the Lords who know more about this subject than any others in the kingdom.
	I hope that it will turn out to be true that this is an adequate form of judicial review. On that basis, we shall abstain.
	It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day.]
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that at that hour.
	Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That Government amendments (a) to (f) thereto be made[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 85.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 39
	  
	Religious hatred offences

Lords amendment No. 23: Leave out Clause 39.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment (a).

Beverley Hughes: The provisions in part 5 of the original Bill would create an offence of incitement to religious hatred. I shall rehearse some of the arguments in favour of such a provision and consider some of the reasons advanced in both Houses against it.
	In relation to the original reasoning behind part 5, I remind hon. Members that, contrary to some contentions, the clauses were included because they had a clear connection to the events of 11 September. Many hon. Members are now awareperhaps more so, since they have read the appendix to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairsof some of the reactions that many Muslim people in this country and other parts of the world have had to endure since 11 September. There have been incidents of harassment, threats and incitement. Leaflets claiming that Islam is responsible for things such as intolerance, looting and molestation of women have been published. Websites that make similar claims are proliferating.
	Those Members who have argued that the clause has no place in the Bill need to think about the behaviour that has been precipitated against Muslim people. It includes not only individual acts against Muslim peoplethere have certainly been crimes such as assaultbut the growing emergence of propaganda inciting hatred against a religious group.

John Gummer: All hon. Members are interested in what the Minister is saying, but can she help the House by explaining how she would draw the line between proper discussion of the influence of Islam on the treatment of women in many countries and what she feels would be an offence under such a law? I understand where the extreme lies, but many of us ask where the line will be drawn. Given that religion cannot even be defined in the Bill, what hope is there of drawing that line in a way that will not lead to very considerable restrictions on perfectly proper discussion?

Beverley Hughes: I shall certainly come to that more general point later, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman now that one of the things that we have been trying to remind Members of during these debates is that the provision arises from the Public Order Act 1986. It will not inhibit rational discussion of any kind, including discussion of the premise or tenets of a religion but deals with the kind of threatening, insulting or abusive words and behaviour that will, or are likely to, incite public disorder. It deals with public order, not the limit of reasonable expression and discourse.

Douglas Hogg: Building on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and bringing the Minister directly to Government amendment (a), as I understand it, the Attorney-General will issue guidance on the circumstances in which he will bring proceedings. In reality, does not Government amendment (a) constitute a definition of the law? That guidance, which is not subject to debate or amendment in the House, will be issued by an Attorney-GeneralI make no personal criticism of himwho is not even a Member of this House. Is that a democratic way to proceed?

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong in his interpretation of what the Attorney-General is proposing. Neither we nor the Attorney-General propose that he take the power to decide the law. With this offence, as with offences involving incitement to racial hatred, the Attorney-General is required to give his consent before a prosecution can proceed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know. The Attorney-General does not determine the ingredients of an offence and he cannot make something criminal that is not a crime under statute. There is a requirement for consent to filter out cases, and I shall expand on that point when I explain Government amendment (a) and the provision on the guidance that the Attorney-General will define.

Tam Dalyell: May I be forgiven for being very puzzled as a non-lawyer? Why is it necessary to include this measurevirtuous, or notin this emergency Bill? I really do not understand.

Beverley Hughes: I started to set out what I thought were the reasons why the provision has been included. One of the reasons is that, as I have just elaborated, it has a direct link with the events of 11 September in terms of not only the features of those events, but some of their consequences for people from some religious groups, particularly Muslims.

Gerald Howarth: Is the Minister not aware that other religious groups feel equally under attack? People from the Hindu community have told me how they feel that they have been threatened by the Muslim community. She suggests that the Government are simply reacting to one form of outrageous activity, but they do not accept that that activity takes other forms as well.

Beverley Hughes: That is not what I am saying. I am explaining why there is an opportunity, precipitated by the events of 11 September, for including the provision in this Bill.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend has been challenged about what the clause is doing in a Bill on terrorism, and up to now she has not given us a satisfactory response. May I suggest the motivation? The clause has been tacked on as a sop to certain sections of Muslim opinion that have long wanted such protection. It is an anomaly and it should not be in this Billwrong clause, wrong Bill. The Lords were right to strike it down.

Beverley Hughes: Once again my hon. Friend is entirely wrong, and I shall come to the reasons why she is wrong in a moment.
	The second reason for including the provision in this Bill is the current anomaly in the law, of which hon. Members will be aware. Legislation on incitement to racial hatred protects two religious groups: Jews and Sikhs. Taking the opportunity to expand the provisions on incitement to racial hatred to include religious hatred will extend that protection not only to Muslims but to other religious groups, including Christians. The clause therefore both corrects an anomaly and extends protection.

David Cameron: Government amendment (a) says:
	The Attorney-General may issue guidance.
	Will we see the guidance before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses?

Beverley Hughes: I understand that point entirely, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will answer his question.

Tony Baldry: Unlike the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I am four-square with the Minister in wanting to give protection to the Muslim community because I understand that this has been a great source of hurt to them for many years. However, like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I cannot see why it is necessary to include the provision in this Bill.
	Having studied all the case law, in which High Court judges have described race relations legislation as being, among other things, rubbery, I do not understand why the Government do not amend that legislation to make incitement to religious hatred an offence. Why are they introducing a wholly new offence in this Bill? The public mischief that Ministers and others want to deal with is a race relations issue, and the only reason why Sikhs and Jews are protected, and Muslims are not, is that judges have ruled in case law that the legislation does not protect Muslims. May I suggest to the Minister that the Home Office

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

Beverley Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber during the Committee proceedings when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a powerful speech that addressed the nub of the argument, but he set out the opposing point of view, which the Government and I share, that the route suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not deal with the fact that people are attacked and discriminated against on the basis of religion. There was considerable debate about whether the cause of discrimination is ethnicity, culture or religion, and we came to the view that it is religion. I agree with my right hon. Friend in that regard, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman missed that speech.

John Gummer: The scientologists dignify a pyramid selling ramp with the word religion, but when I say that, many scientologists will feel that I am stirring up hatred against them. Frankly, I am not trying to stir up hatred; I just do not want people to be led astray by that invention by Lafayette Ron Hubbard, who, as I understand it, made a lot of money out of it. If the Bill is passed in its present form, a lot of other people will call a lot of other ramps religion and protect themselves accordingly. I do not think that the Government know what they are doing. They are restricting people's right to point to sheer, outrageous, unbelievably wicked dishonesty.

Beverley Hughes: I do not accept that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision contains operational safeguards, as do the provisions on incitement to racial hatred. The clause establishes a public order offence; it will require the Attorney-General's consent. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's fears that cults such as scientology will be the subject of offences under the provision.

Several hon. Members: rose

Beverley Hughes: I shall further explain why the clause should be in this Bill before giving way again.
	First, there is a connection between the events of 11 September and the consequences that have flowed from that. Secondly, there is an anomaly in law whereby two groups are protected and other religious groups are not. Thirdly, despite the dissent voiced here and in the other place, there is widespread support for the provision. The view of the Church of England was expressed by the Bishop of Southwark in the other place. The Muslim Council of Britain, the Law Society and the Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledge the pressing social need. The United Nations Human Rights Committee noted the increase in harassment after 11 September and pressed the need for reaction.
	Since 11 September and subsequent events, we have seen the need to protect vulnerable religious communities. We can

Diane Abbott: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I am going to complete

Douglas Hogg: Your hon. Friend wants to intervene.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving the Minister a hard time. I will not allow that.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not trying to give the Minister a hard time. I was merely trying to bring to her attention the fact that her hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) wanted to intervene.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me chair the proceedings while he sits quietly.

Beverley Hughes: In the operation of the law on incitement to racial hatred offences, we saw a small but important deterrent effect on some of the worst excesses of extreme racist groups. I have no doubt that the provision on incitement to religious hatred would have a similarly significant deterrent effect on the groups that seek to extend their violent and distressing propaganda to Muslims and other religious groups. That is another important reason why it should be included in the Bill.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend not concede that she is confusing ethnicity, which we cannot change, and belief, which we choose? I cannot escape from being a middle-aged white English person, but I choose my socialist beliefs and I want them to be challenged and open to discussion.

Beverley Hughes: I acknowledge that view. It is not one that we share.
	I refer again to the powerful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton who used his own experience to illustrate the fact that people respond to him in terms of his religion, not his ethnicity. That is the view that we have taken.

Diane Abbott: For the avoidance of doubt, I, too, stand four-square against discrimination against Muslims. One of the problems with the clause is that it does not provide protection against discrimination; it is about incitement to religious hatred. Furthermore, I believe that 99 per cent. of what it is now fashionable to describe as Islamophobia is either an offence under racial hatred legislation, or a straightforward public order offence.

Beverley Hughes: There are gaps in the legislation. If Members think about why we need the incitement to racial hatred offence in addition to the other provisions in the Public Order Act 1986 and in addition to the racially aggravated offences provisions, perhaps they will apply that thinking to why we need the incitement to religious hatred offence. Current provisions do not cover every eventuality. They do not cover incitement as it is defined in the Bill: the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to result in public disorder. That is the difference. It is not covered in other parts of the Public Order Act, nor is it covered in the other legislation to which my hon. Friend referred.

Evan Harris: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are extremely sympathetic to those in vulnerable communities who may be victims of incitement, which extends beyond Muslims and race to, for example, homophobic attacks. We support legislation covering a much wider range of people. Why did the Minister and her colleagues vote against an amendment in 1998 that would have included a much wider range? Why does she not introduce such a provision in a wider Bill that covers all vulnerable communities?

Beverley Hughes: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the amendment that is before us and nothing else.

Beverley Hughes: As I have said, the Bill follows the events of 11 September. The issue of homophobia does not readily spring to mind as something that follows on from that.
	A number of arguments have been advanced to demonstrate why the provision should not be in the Bill. I understand that there are concerns about limits to freedom of expression that might result from having an offence of incitement to religious hatred. The Government do not underestimate the concerns that have been expressed by many Members of this place and of the other place that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing their legitimate religious beliefs and for having legitimate debate on and scrutiny of those beliefs.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertook to consider the amendment that was tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who is in his place, to determine how best to ensure that that limitation on expression did not occur. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation. We have closely examined the amendments tabled in Committee that sought to provide that protection. We have also closely examined the amendments that were moved in another place. After careful consideration and the involvement of the right hon. Gentleman, we have concluded that the amendments would not be effective in addressing the concerns that have been expressedlegitimate as those concerns are.
	The difficulty is that creating an exclusion from prosecution, or creating a specific defence where, for example, a person cited a religious text, would create a loophole that could and would be exploited by those who deliberately seek to incite hatred. Those are the very people whom we need to catch by this legislation.
	Groups have lifted quotes from the Bible out of context and used them as headlines on their literature in order to incite religious hatred. We therefore propose to reinstate an amended clause on incitement to religious hatreda guidance provision that will provide reassurance on this specific point.

Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Beverley Hughes: I will finish my point.
	The amended clause will provide guidance from the Attorney-General on the legitimate expression of religious belief that is not likely to amount to an offence of inciting religious hatred.

Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, I shall make some comments in response to what she has said.
	The amendment says that the Attorney-General may produce guidance. I would like to see that guidance before any commitment is made, but why does the amendment state that he may produce guidance, and not that he will produce guidance? Alternatively, when the Bill goes to another place, will the Minister change the wording so that the Attorney-General will produce guidance?

Beverley Hughes: For reasons to do with legal advice that we received, the word may was included in the amendment, but we have made it clear, and the Attorney-General has made it clear on the record, that that guidance will be produced, so there is no difficulty in changing the word may to will. I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do that when the Bill goes to another place.

Douglas Hogg: That brings us to the nub of the matter, which I have already put to the hon. Lady. The amendment requires the Attorney-General to
	issue guidance as to conduct in respect of which he will not institute proceedings.
	In other words, his guidance will define conduct that may result in proceedings, as well as conduct that will not result in proceedings. That is a form of legislation, to be introduced by guidance from the Attorney-GeneralI am not criticising himwho is not a Member of Parliament. The guidance is not subject to amendment or even debate; that is not a proper way to operate in criminal law.

Beverley Hughes: In tabling the amendment, the Attorney-General and the Government were responding to the legitimate concerns of Members that the provision should not limit legitimate expression or discussion of religious beliefs. We agree with that. I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of the guidance. As he has outlined, the guidance will exclude legitimate expression and make it clear that such behaviour will not be regarded as criminal; it will not be regarded as inciting hatred or public order.

David Cameron: Is that not the point? Here we are, almost at the 11th hour of the 11th day, discussing the Bill. The Attorney-General may issue guidance; we do not have that guidance and do not know what it will include. This is a complicated area, as the Home Affairs Committee said in its report. Why is it being included in an emergency Bill and why is it being legislated for in this way?

Beverley Hughes: I have gone through the reasons why we think that it is right to include it in the Bill; I am now trying to deal with Members' arguments against that.

Denzil Davies: The amendment refers to conduct consisting of
	the legitimate expression of religious belief.
	What is meant by a legitimate expression, and will that be defined when the guidance comes along?

Beverley Hughes: To answer that question and that of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Attorney-General is trying his best to make sure that the guidance will be available tomorrow. I cannot commit him to that, but that is his intention. I am fairly confident that Members will be able to see a copy of the guidance tomorrow.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Beverley Hughes: I must respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) asked about the word legitimate. We all know what we mean by that. [Hon. Members: No we do not.] Members will have to wait and see the Attorney-General's guidance. However, the intention, as I have made clear in response to Members' concerns, is that debate and statements about beliefs that are scrutinising, discursive and do not incite hatred

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise us whether such guidance is debatable or amendable?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate, and the Speaker cannot get involved in debate.

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) knows that the guidance is a matter for the Attorney-General, if the provision to enable him to issue guidance is enacted.

Mark Fisher: Does not the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have a good point? The guidance will create offences. Should that not be written into the Bill? If the Attorney-General is producing guidance, why cannot it be included in the Bill? That is where offences ought to be created, not in guidance.

Beverley Hughes: The intention is not to create offences, but to clarify the kind of behaviour in relation to freedom of expression that the Attorney-General, in consenting to prosecutions going ahead, will not regard as criminal and will regard as a legitimate expression of

Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? The Minister has just referred to the nature of the guidance to be given by the Attorney- General, which clearly has serious implications for the interpretation of the Bill. Is it in order to proceed with the debate about a part of the Bill, when we know that it will be interpreted by the Attorney-General in a way that we are not allowed to see?

Mr. Speaker: Of course it is in order. The hon. Lady is in order. If she was out of order, I would have made that known to her.

Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that we are in a nonsensical position? I do not attribute blame to her personally. The House has decided, at the Government's behest, that we must complete the legislation tomorrow. That is the effect of the order that we were made to pass. We are a little more than 24 hours from that. We are discussing the definition of an offence that we have never had. Guidance may be issued, but it can never be debated subsequently and it may be seen by only one House, a couple of hours before the end of proceedings. Would it not be better for the Minister to take the measure away, consult widely and come back, as many of us suggested, when we will try to do what the hon. Lady wantspass a law that works and in which people have confidence?

Beverley Hughes: No, it would not be better. The guidance is a matter for the Attorney-General. If he is given the power in the Bill to produce the guidance, he will produce it. I cannot give a commitment on when it will be produced, as I am not writing the guidancethe Attorney-General is. I know that it is his intention to produce it as early as possible tomorrow.

Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) made a good point. What constitutes a legitimate expression of religious belief is highly subjectiveit is capable of innumerable definitions. The hon. Lady is presenting us with a huge power to be conferred on the Attorney-General to define a legitimate expression of religious belief. That will make his life intolerable and give him unwarranted powers. The Bill is not the place for such a measure.

Beverley Hughes: That is nonsense. The Attorney- General has the power. He must give his consent for any offence of incitement to racial hatred. That power of consent will be applied to the offence of incitement to religious hatred, if approved by both Houses. The Attorney- General will be applying the power that he already has. In response to hon. Members' concerns about any limitation on freedom of expression, the Government have offered in the amendment that the Attorney-General will clarify the circumstances that he will not regard as incitementas public order offences. That is certainly within his power. The provision in the amendment goes a long way to answering the legitimate concern of hon. Members to ensure that we do not limit discussion or scrutiny.

Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend has spoken about the power of the Attorney-General. As she knows, other measures provide for a discretion that he exercises in the public interest. I suggest to her, however, that the Government are fettering that discretion in respect of the guidelines. If that is the case, should not those guidelines come before the House so that we can debate them?

Beverley Hughes: The provisions do not fetter the responsibility of the Attorney-General to take into account the public interest, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. In addition to that responsibility, the Government amendment clarifies the fact that the guidance will simply say what sort of words and behaviour the Attorney- General will regard as being outside the offence of incitement. That will include legitimate expression of opinion and scrutiny and discussion. In conjunction with existing safeguards, the amendment will reassure people who feared that those expressing their truly held beliefs could inadvertently find themselves being prosecuted for an offence.

Harry Barnes: The problem of the Attorney-General and his role in giving guidance is wider than has been suggested. The Bill states that religious hatred is
	defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
	What will be required, therefore, is guidance on what can be said in expressing religious or anti-religious views. The definition of what is legitimate in religious debate will be determined by the Attorney-General and not by us in this House.

Beverley Hughes: In so far as the Attorney-General already has the power to consent to a prosecution, and to the extent that he uses that power, he is required to give his consent. The Government amendment adds nothing new in that respect. This is a matter for the Attorney- General. He is not defining offences, but setting out by way of clarification the behaviour that he will regard as outside the remit of an offence of incitement to religious hatred.

Chris Bryant: Is not it fair to say that the specific reason why the amendment was tabled is the problem that was presented to us in Committee by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B Mawhinney)? It related specifically to the question of how he might accidentally, in stating his own Christian faith as a Catholic[Interruption.] I should point out to hon. Members that there is no discourtesy in confusing one denomination of the Christian faith with another; none the less, I apologise to him. Would it not be fair to say that the amendment has been tabled precisely to meet a very specific objection and not to turn the provisions into some sort of pseudo-blasphemy law, as others seem to be suggesting?

Beverley Hughes: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has taken the argument back to the point at which I started. I reminded hon. Members why the Government amendment was tabled and of the process that had occurred since the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and others expressed their concerns about the limit on freedom of expression. The amendment is a response to those concerns.

Brian Mawhinney: It is certainly right to say that it was my intervention that caused the Government to think again. I am grateful to them for having done so, although the House must understand that I am not responsible for the answer that they have provided. Given the disquiet on both sides of the House, does not the hon. Lady understand that, as it was peers from all parts of the other place who threw out clause 39, all that is happening now is that we are reinforcing their determination to throw out the clause again tomorrow? Perhaps she might provide them with some encouragement by giving an indication of the view the Government might take if they were to throw out the clause a second time.

Hilary Armstrong: She is not that naive.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Beverley Hughes: We believe, for the reasons that I have tried to outline, that the Bill should include the offence. We believe that it is important to protect vulnerable religious communities. The Bill affords an opportunity to put such a provision on the statute book, and we want it to be enacted so that those religious communities can be protected. We are committed to that.

Chris Bryant: rose

Lynne Jones: rose

Beverley Hughes: I want to make some progress because time is passing.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More than half the debate has been spent on the Minister having to answer questions. As the Chief Whip is in her place, may I make an appeal through you for Government Front Benchers to consider introducing a proposal to extend the time for this debate and the remaining debates? The current position is nonsensical.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the House has already decided on the matter.

Simon Hughes: Ask her to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can ask the right hon. Lady, but I am not going to do that.

Beverley Hughes: Other hon. Members want to speak and, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, time is moving on and I wish to conclude.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Beverley Hughes: I must make some progress. I have been generous and I hope that hon. Members will understand if I draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
	The limit on freedom of expression is an important argument, to which we have tried to respond. It was also argued that the power should be debated for longer to get it right. I remind hon. Members that the provision is an extension of existing law, not new law. Hon. Members are familiar with the operation of the current law on race hatred. It has worked for years, despite similar arguments against it when it was introduced. We have debated the subject for some weeks. If the mythical better version of the provision genuinely exists, where is it? The Attorney- General recently asked that question. I do not believe that it exists.

David Cameron: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I must conclude.
	The third argument is that the provision is inappropriate to an anti-terrorism measure. I began my remarks by pointing out the link with 11 September, especially the consequences for some Muslim people. It is therefore appropriate to include it in the Bill.
	Sometimes politicians must be prepared to seize the moment and the opportunity. The events of 11 September offer us the opportunity to put the provision on the statute book. Hon. Members here and in the other place must decide whether they are prepared to seize the moment, to correct an anomaly, and to protect vulnerable religious groups from pernicious and vile abuse that fractures communities. We have that opportunity now, not tomorrow or at some vague future date. No one should be under the illusion that another Bill will be presented in a reasonable time to include the provision. It is now or possibly never.
	It is evident that almost everyone who has spoken on the matter, whether for or against, in either House, has been united in their condemnation of the words and behaviour that would constitute incitement to religious hatred. Now is the time to ensure that the provision is on the statute book, given the opportunity that the Bill affords.

Oliver Letwin: Let me begin where the Minister left off. She is absolutely right to say that there is consensus in the House that there are grotesque abuses of our social freedoms involved in the victimisation of members of particular religions. We are united in this Houseand, I suspect, in the other House, tooin wishing to prevent those abuses. There are also grave problems of religious discrimination. As I understand it, it is lawful in this country at present to put up a sign outside a pub, stating: No Muslims here or No Hindus here. That is a grotesque lacuna in our law, and changes are needed. We are at one in wishing to see those changes made. That is not, however, the issue that we are debating now. The Minister has not introduced a serious and considered Bill on religious discrimination. Indeed, she has not addressed that issue. The Bill addresses a different question.
	In the last 43 or 44 minutes, the Minister has illustrated better than we could ever have hoped to do the reasons why this clause does not belong in the Bill, and why the amendment is not a sufficient answer to the problems raised. In her description of the clause, she mis-stated its intent not once, not twice, not thrice but four timesexcept that, on the fourth occasion, she mis-stated her mis-statement. She described the incitement as an incitement to disorder. It is not so. Were it so, the matter would be easier to address. It is an incitement to hatred. The record will show that she used the worddisorder three times. On the fourth occasion, she used the term order. [Interruption.] This is not a matter of being too clever by half. It is a matter of attending to the issue that we are meant to be attending to: the words of the statute. Labour Members appear to believe that we can legislate without attending to the words that we use. We cannot do so. Our tradition of law insists on the ability of a judge to observe what is written. The duty of this House and of the other place is to write the right words. The duty of Ministers is to represent correctly what is intended to be written.
	The problem with the clause is that it seeks to prevent an incitement which may occur through the statement of all sorts of propositions that are matters of legitimate belief, and that it seeks to make unlawful a hatred which may be engendered by the expression of those legitimate forms of belief. It does not provide us with an adequate means of distinguishing between those circumstances and the circumstances in which loathsome individuals engage in loathsome acts intended to create public disorder. That is the nub of the issue, and the Minister systematically obscured it.

Douglas Hogg: Is not another very offensive part of this procedure the fact that we are giving to the Attorney-General powers of legislation, yet the House has the opportunity to hear only four or five speeches on the proposition, at the very most? That is not a proper way for us to discharge our responsibilities.

Oliver Letwin: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the next problem that the Minister's speech so admirably, if unintentionally, illuminated. The Government have made a genuine attempt, for which we give them credit, to address the problems raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), Protestant as he is. In so doing, however, the Government have merely illustrated the underlying problem of the clause.
	It is true, as the Minister repeatedly said, that under the clause as it stood, the Attorney-General would have had the power to adjudicate on which matters he would prosecute. It is, in principle, an advance that, before exercising that power, he should state on what principles he would exercise it. But my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is right to say that if that is the method chosen for acting in such cases, it is one that will allow of arbitrary and uncertain action.
	The Minister illustrated that so pellucidly that she cannot possibly have understood what she was doing when she told the House that the Attorney-General intended to produce the guidance tomorrow. The clause and its amendment were first conceived approximately 48 hours ago. So, in some 72 hours, the Attorney-General will have produced law for this country. What is to guarantee that, 72 hours later, he will not produce some other law? [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary is saying that the Attorney-General contemplated producing the guidance much earlier, that information is helpful.

David Blunkett: I shall be brief, as I merely want to say that the Attorney-General put down on paper the illustration of his guidance in response to requests to do so, including some from Conservative Members, who wanted to see the nature of the beast before voting on it. Far from being awkward, he tried to help, to illustrate what it would be and to respond to suggestions regarding inadequacy.

Oliver Letwin: I accept entirely that the Attorney-General tried to be helpful, but he has produced guidance in a very short time. What is to guarantee that, a short time thereafter, he will not see fit to alter the guidance? What parliamentary check will there be on continuous alteration of the guidance? To what extent can we possibly hope that religious relationships in this country will be given a firm and certain basis in law if he can repeatedly change, without parliamentary check, the basis on which the law is to be enforced? This cannot be the right way to proceed in a matter so subtle, so delicate and so dangerous.

Chris Bryant: In which case, what parliamentary check is there on the Attorney-General when he or she makes a series of decisions, which amount to case law, about when to proceed or not to proceed in respect of incitement to racial hatred?

Oliver Letwin: As a matter of fact, that is not case law, but let us leave that aside. The point is well taken. On incitement to racial hatred, the Attorney-General makes decisions about whether to prosecute. However, the burden of the argument made not just from those on these Conservative Benches, but from those on the Labour Benches; not just in this House, but in the other place; and not just in Parliament, but outside, is precisely that there is a great distinction between incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred, as the quality of decision that it falls to the administrator to make in the one is far simpler than in the other. That is precisely the problem that has repeatedly been drawn to the Government's attention, and it will not do to argue as if that difference does not exist.
	It is not the duty of the House this evening to rehearse the arguments for or against Government amendment (a), which I believe are strong among Conservative Members and weak on the Government side, although we have inevitably been forced to do so. We are considering purely whether the decision of the Lords, who not just by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority consisting of Labour peers, Cross-Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, voted to throw the proposal out, should be reversed in an attempt to reinsert in emergency legislation a provision that is, at very least, highly controversial. Surely anyone who listened to the Minister cannot conclude that the case is made for taking that extreme action.

Lynne Jones: May I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point? The Minister said that Members will make up their own minds, but the fact is that the majority of Members on both sides of the House who are in the Chamber are concerned about the legislation. Those who will vote with the Government are not here to listen; those who are concerned are present, and Members on both sides share his anxieties.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that remark, which illustrates the point.
	Close to the conclusion of the Minister's remarksI think I quote her reasonably accuratelyshe said that it is sometimes right for politicians to seize an opportunity. That is true: it is sometimes right for politicians to do that. This is the moment for the Government to seize an opportunity, or rather two.
	First, the Government have the opportunity to establish an unremitting cross-party consensus for the fostering of a proper Bill dealing with religious discrimination and religious tolerance that will set the country on the right track for many yearsan opportunity that should not be wasted. Secondly, they have the opportunity to enable the two Houses to reach the consensus that we all seek on this necessary Bill by removing from it a wholly unnecessary, ill-considered and damaging clause.

Mark Fisher: The Minister was right to say that Members in all parts of the House find religious hatred repugnant, and the shadow Home Secretary was right to say that this was about words rather than actions.
	The Minister was very complimentary about my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but his speech on Second Reading was misconceived, because it was entirely about actions and not about words. Here we are dealing with hatred, not the consequences of hatred. The Minister is, however, entirely right to suggest that this is a serious matter. The words of hate can be as vicious and damaging as actions to individuals and communities.
	We need only consider the debate about hate speech in the United States, which has considered the issue in far more detail over the past 20 years than we have even begun to. We need only recall what happened in Germany between 1927 and the beginning of the second world war, when words galvanised by the Nazis set up all the appalling events of the 1940s. Words are of course damaging, and they need much more consideration than we are giving them here.
	These are complicated issues. We talk of joined-up government, but the Government's own position on faith schools in the context of legislation of this kind shows that these are confusing, contradictory areas in which a great deal of nuance and paradox must be dealt with. We cannot legislate at such speed, and in such an ill-considered way. As the Home Secretary and the Minister have said, these matters are vitally important, but they require calm, reflection and time. The measures should not be rushed through like this; they will stand for a long time.
	This is not, in itself, an emergency, in that religious hatred, regrettably, has been with us for a long time. We must get the provision right. We can easily return to it later in the current Parliament, or at some other time, but we should return to it in a much subtler, calmer and more considered fashion. This is not the right time, and I cannot support this part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I shall be extremely brief, as only a couple of minutes remain.
	There are huge issues on the national agenda. There is the issue of how to ensure that people do not suffer discrimination on the basis of their faith. The Bill does not deal with that; nor should it. There is the issue of how to bring people together to respect and value each other, and the issue of faith schoolsa linked issue, but one that, properly, is not dealt with here.
	We are dealing with one item on a wide agendaan item that has always been recognised as being hugely controversial. How do we achieve the right balance between free speech and the ability to criticise, whether the criticism is of scientologists, Protestants, Roman Catholics or any world or local faith? How do we ensure that people are respected?
	As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, we are trying to achieve that within the narrow confines of concepts such as public order and incitement to hatred by words or actions. Whole issues are left undebated, such as how it can be established that someone has such action in mindwhether it is part of his or her intention. There is a bizarre tautology in the Attorney-General's suggested guidelines, which deem such conduct acceptable if it consists of a legitimate expression of religious belief. By definition, we are trying to establish what is such a legitimate expression.
	For a long time, we have argued that it is proper for that issue to be on the national agenda. Long before 11 September, it was an issue. All the people who might have been persuaded that it is now or never have said that they would rather it were debated, if possible, in the context of wider legislation about the blasphemy law, religious discrimination and incitement to religious hatred. The Minister said that it is now or never. That is absolutely the wrong approach. The Scottish Executive have said, Let us take it out, come back to it next year, talk to people about it, get views around the country and then legislate carefully with maximum consensus.
	We are offered guidelines as the concession, as it were. To change from law that is difficult, even if it is in the Bill, to law that will be defined by something not in the Bill and that could change, is to substitute uncertain law at best for less certain and even more difficult to define law at worst.

Brian Mawhinney: Does the hon. Gentleman at least recognise that it was the Government's willingness to address some of the legitimate concerns that were raised on Second Reading that has produced the amendment, which is causing so much difficulty? In that sense, there was a response. Will he press the Government to pursue that response further, rather than this evening?

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman and colleagues throughout the House and in the other place are right. The Government need time to respond. Issues have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and colleagues. The other place has only just begun to grasp and grapple with those issues.
	The Liberal Democrats are unanimous. Whatever our different faiths or lack of them, whatever our different nationalities, we ask the Government to join with the consensus among Conservative Front Benchers, their colleagues and people around the country and say that this is not the time, this is not the place, and this is not the way. We can protect people in the meantime but we must legislate properly. We must not do it with our faces against the wall and the clock ticking away, resulting in law that no one will be satisfied has adequately met the task. These are huge issues and they cannot be resolved properly in the next 24 hours.

Diane Abbott: The Lords struck out the clause. I rise to urge the House not to reinstate it. The House needs to reflect on the genesis of the demand from the Muslim community for protection against incitement to religious hatred. I know what the genesis was because I was in the House at the time. The genesis of that powerful demand was the debate around Salman Rushdie. It is all about the issue of freedom of speech. If Members had been in the House at that time and had had the debate with the Muslim community that I had, they would know why the clause must be phrased much more carefully.
	Furthermore, the powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was wholly misconceived because he dealt largely with racial discrimination rather than incitement to religious hatred as such. Of course, every hon. Member is against discrimination against Muslims and believes that all religions should be given a measure of protection, but it should be in a properly thought out Bill introduced at the right time. It is the wrong clause. It is the wrong Bill. It represents a serious threat to freedom of speech. I urge the House to support the Lords in striking it down.

Brian Mawhinney: I appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary took seriously the concerns that I expressed in Committee. He was as good as his word. He made arrangements for me to see his officials and we had a constructive discussion. It would be fair to say, without revealing the content of those private discussions, that I alerted officials to the dangers of going down this route, and tried to persuade them of the merits of the way that I thought was best.
	The Government have now introduced this legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government would table an amendment to substitute the word will for may in the amendment, but I have also let it be known that without having sight of the guidancenever mind the issue of guidance itselfthere is no way that any responsible House of Parliament could endorse

It being fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day.]
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 236.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Government amendment (a) agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 65 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 66: After clause 124, insert a new clauseExpiry

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendment (a) in lieu.

David Blunkett: The cries of astonishment when the last vote was announced reminded me of phone a friend in the television programme. I hope that there will be a few friends around tonight[Hon. Members: Not a chance!] I think there will bethere may even be one or two on the Opposition Benches as well as one or two on the Benches behind me.
	The amendments relate to the moonlight clauses, or rather the sunset[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations going on in the Chamber. The House must come to order.

David Blunkett: I promise that I shall not try to crack another joke, Mr. Speaker.
	On sunset clauses, the Government have taken several measures in response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to the wishes of individual Members and to debates held earlier on part 4. Those measures include a sunset clause after five years, review after a year and other provisions that reflect the will of the House.
	I want to make it clearso that there is no doubt in the other placethat we strongly resist any further move on sunset clauses. We shall not allow the Bill to be dismembered by the indiscriminate application of sunset clauses to different parts of it. Having voted on those matters when the Bill was before the Commons for the first time, and after having those provisions overturned by the House of Lords, it is clear that we have listened and responded to concerns on the main clauses of the Bill. It is not possible for the Government to decide that a Bill should be completely taken apartnor has that been true for any other measurewith different timings for individual provisions; and that proceedings should be repeated and the measure brought back to the House.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, speak to Government amendment (a), which proposes that the review should be undertaken by
	not fewer than seven members of the
	Privy Council. Would he be so good as to tell us by what criteria he will select those members of the Privy Council? Why should we assume that they will not be carefully picked nominees? Would he further give an undertaking that the report will not merely be laid before the House
	as soon as is reasonably practicable,
	but be debated by the House, preferably on a free vote?

David Blunkett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman manages to ask a perfectly reasonable question in the most aggressive manner possible, but I have to say that he can rest easythe one thing that we will not be selecting on is past Cabinet Ministers' competence in doing their jobs. If we want a little bit of a roust at this time of night, we can have one.
	Of course, we shall consult the Opposition parties on the committee of review's make up, so the House should agree to the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment to provide a review committee, which would report within two years. That report would be laid before the House of Commons, and both Houses would hold a full debate on it. I am prepared tomorrow to consider the suggestions that the Opposition parties are putting to me to strengthen that proposal. Clearly, the review committee's recommendations on individual parts of the Bill would be taken forward by the Government. We will propose further refinements tomorrow that might[Interruption.] I hope that right hon. and learned Gentleman had a very good dinner.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Blunkett: No, I will not give way; I have given way several times to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a number of issues this evening.
	The review committee will be made up of Privy Councillors precisely to allow it to take evidence from the security services and then to compile a report that will, therefore, carry weight because it can cover everything in the Bill.

Simon Hughes: First, will the Home Secretary accept that we have no intention of wishing to dismember the Bill, as he suggests our proposals would do? Secondly, does he object to the sunset provision accepted by the House of Lords because there would be different time limits for different parts of the Bill; or does he object to the fact that an emergency Bill contains a sunset clause at all? If he objects to the latter, I hope that he will accept that that is unusual, if not unprecedented, in the case of such emergency legislation.

David Blunkett: I accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the sunset clauses that relate to the updating of the Terrorism Act 2000, precisely to meet the requirements that hon. Members requested. We have sunset clauses on the justice and home affairs provisions for the end of next June. We have the equivalent of a sunset clause on data holding in the form of the two-year provision relating to the code of practice.
	We have done our utmost to ensure that, because of speed and complexity, the review body, whose report will be debated by the House, can reflect on those aspects that it thinks require further consideration after the operation of the measure. That goes further than Governments have gone in the past in attempting to accommodate the genuine concern that exists because of the way in which we, by necessity, have introduced the Bill just over three months after the events of 11 September.

George Osborne: So that the House can be well informed on the need for a sunset clause, will the Home Secretary explain what further refinements he will propose tomorrow and, indeed, whether they will include a response to the widespread opposition on both sides of the House to the religious hatred clauses, which we have just debated?

David Blunkett: I was talking about the review of the whole Bill and about any identified aspects of the Bill that the review committee finds to be working inappropriately or not in accord with the wishes of both Houses. We could reach a reasonable measure of agreement on thatif not wholly tonight, then certainly in the next 24 hours. That is an attempt not to end up with a Bill that is fragmented, or with this House and the Lords constantly repeating proceedings on the Bill, which, I have to remind right hon. and hon. Members, has had eight days in the Lords. [Hon. Members: But not here. ] No, not here. Let us be clear: we originally agreed a timetable, and I have always accepted that it is extremely tight. [Interruption.] There are a few grumbles. Some people accept the agreements that have been reached, and some do not.
	I hope that it does not finish his career altogether, but I have to praise the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who, despite considerable disagreement with me about parts of the Bill and fundamental ideological differences, has always kept his word. That has made it easier to do business with him. We shall continue to do business over the next 24 hours and, I hope, for a very long time to come.

Oliver Letwin: I thank the Home Secretary for his remarks, and his hopes are reciprocated. Moreover, I hope that he will accept from us, and I think from the Liberal Democrats, that if he comes forward with proposals that will genuinely make that review bite, we will look at them constructively and discuss them with him, if he so wishes, and with our colleagues in the other place, in a genuine effort to come to a consensus on this vexed question.

David Blunkett: I am deeply grateful, because the two Houses, the working of our Parliament and the response of people outside to the way in which democracy can operate will be enhanced if we can achieve that in the hours ahead. If we end up making a mess of this, I can see no value or gain for any of us or for our reputations or the reputation of Parliament. If we are able to act swiftly but carefully, people will be encouraged to view our democracy in the way that we would like.
	We have rightly had robust and difficult debate and scrutiny of the Executive. I believe that we have listened and responded, and I have certainly learned a great deal over the past few weeks. I hope that by dealing with the Bill as we have, we will be able to present the House of Lords with a programme to which they can now agree. I hope also that despite the harsh words that have sometimes been spoken in the other place, as they have here, they will respect the way in which the Commons has responded, and we in turn will respect their rights to scrutinise and return to us certain measures, which we, in turn, have deliberated on. It is in that spirit that I propose that we reject the Lords amendments and agree to the Government amendment in lieu.

Norman Baker: I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the constructive way in which he has approached this matter and others. I welcome some of his positive responsesconcessions sounds too dismissiveand the way in which he has changed the wording of the Bill accordingly. However, we are not convinced that enough progress has been made on sunset clauses, and I shall be asking my colleagues to agree with the Lords, not the Government, when we come to vote in 17 minutes or so.
	The Home Secretary mentioned a review, and it would be helpful if tomorrow some flesh were put on the bones of that. If the review would result in a sunset clause of a different nature, we would be willing to hear about it, as, no doubt, would the Conservatives. If, however, the intention is simply to tart about with the panel of Privy Councillors that he has suggested, that will not be enough.
	Sunset clauses are necessary in this Bill for three reasons. First, by common consent, this is emergency legislation, and it is far reaching. Secondly, most Members feel that it goes beyond what is necessary to deal with terrorism, and deals with subjects that are way beyond that, including ordinary criminal activities.
	Thirdly, the Bill has not been properly discussed. Insufficient time was given to Second Reading and the Bill's first consideration by the Commons, and tonight there is insufficient time to deal with a range of important issues raised by the Lords amendments. When this 125-clause Bill was first considered by the Commons, 86 clauses were not debated in Committee and only two of those were subsequently discussed on Report, leaving 84 clauses undiscussed. None of the schedules were debated in Committee save schedule 5, which had less than five minutes' discussion, and schedule 1 was briefly debated on Report. Of the clauses that were debated, 19 were debated for less than five minutes in Committee. No one could possibly claim that the Bill has been properly debated by the Commons.
	In those circumstances, and given the nature of the Bill, it is impossible to say that it should be passed without a proper review being established. With due respect to the Home Secretary's proposals, that body of Privy Councillors does not constitute a proper review. It is a body comprising the great and the good who will consider the legislation and may comment on it, but in no way is their judgment to be binding on the Government. When Lord Rooker was asked whether the recommendations of the review would be accepted, he replied:
	That cannot be said at this point.[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 1204.]
	In other words, he gave no undertaking that the comments made by that body of Privy Councillors would be accepted by the Government.

Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman make the point that amendment (a) is not the amendment that will be enacted? We now know that the Government are to table amendments to amendment (a), so we are not debating that which the Government expect to become the law.

Norman Baker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point well.
	I welcome the Home Secretary's willingness to consider what might be done, but the fact is

David Blunkett: Let me make it clear that Lord Rooker could not give that assurance because we had not agreed it at that time. However, I have just given it, and if I say from the Dispatch Box that that is what we are going to do, that is what we are going to do.

Norman Baker: I am not quite clear what the Home Secretary is saying, but if it is that whatever the recommendations made by the review body, the Government will automatically accept them, that is not what was said in the House of Lords. If that is what he is saying, it is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a proper sunset clause that limits emergency, far-reaching and draconian legislation. Previous legislation of this natureprevention of terrorism Actshave contained clauses whereby a statute is expected to die or to be subject to renewal orders. That is not the case with the Bill and we must know why not.
	We have not been given sufficient time and it is dangerous to enact such far-reaching legislation in such circumstances. Lord Rooker said:
	the speed with which this legislation is being passed must be recognised by the Government.
	He seems to recognise itdo other Ministers? He also said:
	We are rushing the legislation and there are no gaps between the stages allowing for mature consideration of the issues raised.[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 1203-04.]
	In circumstances in which a Minister acknowledges that legislation is being rushed, the least the Government can do is ensure that there is a proper sunset clause covering the entire Billapart from part 12, on which there is common agreement. By so doing, if there are mistakes and if the Opposition points are well-founded, the Government can get themselves out of the hole and restore the civil liberties that I fear will be taken away under the Bill.
	A sunset clause is an essential defence. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on that.

Douglas Hogg: rose

Oliver Letwin: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Douglas Hogg: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) wants to speak, so I shall be brief.
	I object to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment and to substitute amendment (a). To begin with, I am a strong supporter of the sunset clauses in the form that the Lords approved them, and I strongly oppose any attempt to derogate from them. Furthermore, I oppose in particular the proposal in amendment (a).
	We are told that there is to be a review. That is very nice of the Home Secretary, but a review by whom? The record of the current Government suggests that it will be a packed review body, comprising nicely and carefully chosen Privy Councillors who will do what they are told to do by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no confidence in that sort of review. What will happen when we have the review, which is to be laid before the Houses of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable? That is jolly nice of the Government. But what then? We are told that the Government will implement the proposals. Why is that not in the Bill? That is because the Home Secretary does not want it in the Bill. Why is that? It is because he wants to be in a position not to do that which he has just said. If not, it would be in the Bill.
	What procedure will there be for ensuring that the report is speedily debated? The answer is none. The truth is that weasel words have been brought forward by a Government who are in a fix, trying to find a mechanism to smooth over the effectual injustice of that which they are about. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering away. The truth is that we should not have a Bill. However, if we are to have a Bill, we should have a proper sunset clause, and the present proposal is no substitute for it.
	Worse, we are told that amendment (a) is not in its final form, because tomorrow, there will be further amendments. We are being asked to approve tonight a solution to a problem that is no solution. Further amendments will come back to the House and we shall have five, six or seven minutes to discuss them. They will then be put through the House on a Government vote. This is a profoundly undemocratic process and we should have no part of it.

Oliver Letwin: I shall certainly not attempt to emulate the unbelievable eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I share many of the reservations that he so potently expressed. Moreover, I share also many of the reservations that were expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).
	The Opposition seek, as does the Home Secretary, to achieve legislation that will protect the United Kingdom from terrorism. As we have always reminded ourselves and the House, that is a joint aim. We have adopted what we continue to believe to be a responsible and sensible approach to resolving the problems that the hon. Member for Lewes accurately described. There is the problem that is engendered by the Home Secretary's desire to see the Bill enacted so rapidly, which is that we have not had an opportunity sufficiently to scrutinise the uncontentious parts of the Bill to determine whether they will work in practice.
	If we had our way, and if there were not a problem of urgency, I would wish that we insist permanently on our sunset clause, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, with the gay abandon of the Back Benches, so splendidly calls for. However, we need a Bill, and as I understand it the Home Secretary has offeredI take seriously his point that when he says these things he means them, and he has shown that repeatedlyto consider how the decisions or views taken by the committee of Privy Councillors could be given real bite and made to bear on parliamentary debate and parliamentary revision.
	I am sure that the Government will bring forward such proposals. I do not guarantee that they will in their entirety meet immediately with our approval, but we shall engage with them. We will work with the Government to ascertain whether we can crack this problem so that the clauses do not prove an obstacle to achieving the passage of the Bill. We need to see the removal of the clauses on incitement to religious hatred, and we have dealt with that. Many of the other items that were most objectionable have been removed or amended by the Government. The item before us should not be a sticking point. Let us hope that in the next 24 or 36 hours we can achieve the desired result. If we fail to do so, it will not be for want of trying on the Opposition Benches.

David Blunkett: I do not welcome the continuing opposition, but I welcome the measured and sensible approach that has been enunciated. Everyone in politics has to make decisions about what is possible as well as about what is desirable. In the past few weeks, each of us has endeavoured to do just that. If, in the next 24 hours, we can find a way forward, people will thank us.
	In response to those who are sceptical and believe that we are packing the measure or are being elusive, if we were prepared to take seriously what was said by a committee that undertook a review and could take security evidence but, after debate in both Houses, we were not prepared to respond to it, we would be making a rod for our own backs. Making sure that what we say and do is credible is a matter of both will and necessity; there should be trust that that will happen.
	The shadow Home Secretary illustrated the necessity even in opposition to recognise that the Government must govern; we have to lead and find a way forward. I urge Liberal Democrat Members, if they aspire to be a major Opposition party, to be prepared to do the same. I have heard the spirit of co-operation tonight, but I have not heard any words about being prepared to give as well as take. If I am prepared to give as well as take with a majority of 165, Liberal Democrat Members might do so as well.

Simon Hughes: I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect that in all the conversations that I have had with him and his ministerial colleagues, and in debate on the Floor of the House, I have always said that there is scope to improve the Bill in both Houses by amendment. There are principles at stake, and there may be some that clash. I hope that the Home Secretary will not confuse a difference of view on the right outcome with willingness to see if we can reach an agreement. We are certainly willing to reach an agreement; if we can agree, we will, but I cannot promise that we can.

David Blunkett: I understand that no one in opposition can promise that. However, I simply make the point that, at the end of the process, people will judge what we do by watching how the Opposition and the Government conduct themselves. In my position, I have to be mindful of that. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated how he sees the way forward and I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesman will find it in his heart to be big enough to do so as well. If we can find a way forward together, there will be some credibility for all of us. If we cannot, people will make a judgment about those who are unwilling or unable to do so.

Question put: That this House disagrees with the Lords amendment No. 66:
	The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.

Clause 11
	  
	Procedure for making certain amending orders

Lords amendment: No. 1, page 5, line 24, leave out
	further order states that the Treasury
	and insert Treasury reasonably.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 24 to 37 and 67 to 70.
	I ask hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so as quickly as possible.

Simon Hughes: We have reached the part of our debate that proves that some aspects of the Bill are non- controversial. I can help colleagues from all parties by saying that my hon. Friends and I do not intend to divide the House again tonight. I hope that that encourages those who do not feel obliged to stay for the remaining few minutes that have been allocated to our discussion.

Oliver Letwin: In a spirit of cross-party amity, we do not intend to divide the House if that permits the Whips to let people go home.

Simon Hughes: That leaves only two options: Labour or Conservative Back Benchers or our friends from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will press the button. However, I sense that we may be reserving the contest for tomorrow.
	I want to raise three points on the amendments. They have evidently been put through the Lords with agreement, and there is therefore no attempt to reject them in the Commons.
	Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 35 relate to the nuclear industry, and raise some important issues that we had barely a moment to discuss earlier. Lords amendment No. 33 covers the regulation of security of the civil nuclear industry. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to hold conversations, perhaps they should leave the Chamber.

Simon Hughes: The Government have not had the chance to explain, in the context of their justification of part 8 of the Bill, how they reconcile clause 78, which allows the Secretary of State to
	make regulations for the purpose of ensuring the security of
	(a) nuclear sites and other nuclear premises,
	which is unarguable, and clause 80which is the subject of Lords amendments Nos. 34 and 35with their freedom of information legislation intentions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) proposed, during our brief Report stage, that we ought to be able to know where nuclear waste and nuclear materials were travelling throughout the country. We would argue strongly that the reason for that is to reduceand not increasefear, suspicion and concern. Can we have some reassurance, either tonight or tomorrow, on those two clauses, by way of further amendments, that freedom of information will apply in relation to these matters in the Bill that we have not had the opportunity to raise before?

Norman Baker: Is not the issue that the Government are reducing the amount of information being given on the transportation of nuclear material? I understand that specific movements must, of course, be kept secret, but the generality must be available for public discussion. Would it not be more sensible if the Government, for reasons of security and to deter terrorism, sought to reduce the number of nuclear movements? At the moment, they are increasing.

Simon Hughes: That seems a logical addition to what I was seeking to persuade Ministers of. I hope that they will offer an explanation that such measures are behind some of the amendments or, if not, that further amendments are possible.
	Of course it is important that the nuclear industry is secure, and the Liberal Democrats have supported, in general terms, the sections of the Bill that deal with weapons of mass destruction, security of pathogens and toxins, and security of the nuclear industry. We believe that their inclusion is appropriate.
	Lords amendment No. 37 relates to clause 88, in part 9, which deals with aviation security. It would insert a new clause that would allow powers originally incorporated in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Aviation Security Act 1982 to apply outside the United Kingdom. Conservative Members have often raised the issue, perfectly properly, of when it is appropriate to enact extra-territorial legislation.
	We are clear that improving aviation security is a right and proper part of the Bill, but we are disturbed that we have barely been able to debate the matter. Colleagues with airports in their constituencies, and other hon. Members, would have liked such an opportunity. My hon. Friend's proposal for a sunset provision on the issue has strength, because it would give us the chance to do that. On Lords amendment No. 37, will the Minister tell us why our courts need extra-territorial jurisdiction only in relation to these matters, and not to others?
	The non-controversial matters in the Bill will be concluded tonight, because they have come from the Lords to us, and if we agree with them, that is the end of that business; they will not go back to the other place. There are, obviously, matters on which we have taken a different view from the Lords, and those matters will go back tomorrow.
	The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I have said that we shall collaborate and participate in discussions to get maximum agreement. The House of Lords has no time limit on its debates tomorrow, so it can give those issues more consideration than we have been able to give. I hope that, as it does so, the Government respond to our concernswe want this to be the last time that we have to raise themand to concerns expressed at the other end of the building.

Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Lords may make radical amendments that address concerns expressed in this Chamber and that we shall have only an hour in which to discuss them?

Simon Hughes: That is certainly true. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware that the business motion passed just after 3.30 pm, although it was opposed by my colleagues, Conservative Members and others, gives us an hour to deal with everything that comes back. We object to that, as an hour is not enough and we have no idea how many amendments there will be.
	I tell the Minister that we are willing to be constructive, but we are absolutely clear about the fact that we will have the parliamentary opportunities at both ends of the building to require the Government to come back with alternatives that meet the principles involved. These matters are being debated at this stage in only 15 minutes, and they can be discussed in less time at earlier stages, so if ever there was an argument for being able to limit the Bill and for having it back for proper review, that is it.
	We expect a proper review. We also hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the specific points raised tonight and that, tomorrow, the Government accept that such legislation should last for a limited time. That will enable us to do our job properly, however soon the Government want to give us the opportunity.

Douglas Hogg: I must briefly comment on Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 4. The House will have noticed that they are detailed, but as we had no opportunity for proper debate in Committee, we could not consider their desirability. The fact that the other place introduced four important amendments on the reviewability of the statutory order procedure suggests how unwise the House is to enact this Bill rapidly.
	The truth is that if the other place had needed to, it could, with difficulty, have found more time. We could not, and there are many aspects that we would wish to have debated more fully. Had we done so, we would have been in the business of introducing detailed measures designed to reinforce civil liberties. We have been denied that opportunity and the other place has had insufficient time, but the fact that the four amendments were introduced and accepted demonstrates the lack of wisdom shown by the Government in this regard.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have added up the figures, but by my calculation the Government did not disagree on 40 uncontroversial amendments from the other place, although they disagreed on 10 substantive amendments. Many involve matters that were never debated here, which confirms his point and argues strongly that we must not go down this road again.

Douglas Hogg: Absolutely. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, scores of clauses passed through this House undiscussed. That is not a proper way in which to legislate. Even the non-controversial clauses demonstrate the force of what I am saying.

Oliver Letwin: I do not want to say much about the amendments, which are uncontroversial, except to seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government know what they are doing in accepting the removal of white pox from the list of viruses. I do not mean to be impolite, but some of my hon. Friends asked me why it is being done. I must admit that I do not understand why, though there may be a perfectly good explanation.
	I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), with whom we have co-operated long and hard, as much has been achieved. I also thank the Government for their co-operation in removing much that was offensive. I echo his sentiment that, as tomorrow progressesand it may become tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrowwe must not merely briefly debate, if I may use that term without abusing it, and then vote on whatever comes to us from the Lords, but, much more importantly, continue a dialogue over what may be many hours to resolve issues that remain outstanding.
	The Home Secretary was right: if we fail, the country will look askance. If we succeed by giving too much, neither the Government nor the country will benefit. It is a delicate balance. We must achieve resolutions that genuinely protect civil liberties; we must ensure that what passes into law is a Bill about terrorism rather than a Bill about other matters, and a Bill that is workable rather than a Bill that causes trouble for the Government as for others. If we can achieve those goals, our discussions todayand discussions that I suspect will take place at much later hours tomorrowwill have been worthwhile.

Beverley Hughes: I shall have to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) tomorrow. I commit myself to providing him with details then. I can tell him now, however, that Lords amendment No. 37 is technical. Its aim is to ensure that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man will be able to use the aviation security powers, and it was specifically requested by Jersey and Guernsey.
	The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) raised another technical question. Lords amendment No. 70 removes white pox from the list of viruses because it is regarded as a form of smallpox and, like smallpox, is covered by the Variola virus entry in schedule 5.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful answer about aviation powers, but is the provision limited to the three places that she mentioned? If so, that is perfectly acceptable. May I also ask whether it is the only provision in the Bill that extends to those places, and whether they had to legislate as well?

Beverley Hughes: According to my recollection it is the only provision that extends to those places, but by tomorrow I shall have established whether the information that I have given off the top of my head is correct.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hour that we will be given tomorrow, in the first instance, to receive the Lords' response to our messages. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), the Whip who has been dealing with the Bill, tells me that that was discussed with him, and that it was not questioned by him or his colleagues during the discussions between the usual channels. I am surprised that he raised the matter, because we have tried to respond not just to the substance of many Members' concerns about various parts of the Bill but to Opposition requests about how the Bill should be managed, within the limitations imposed on us. I know that my hon. Friend has tried to do that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain now, I should be pleased to hear his explanation.

Simon Hughes: I will happily do so, very briefly.
	The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I were indeed consulted. We presented a counter- proposition relating to all the other matters, which the Government accepted; but we had to take into account the fact that we had already passed a business motion committing us to finishing on Thursday. It is because of that constraint, on which the House had already voted, that we tried to be practical and arrange for time to be provided. We do not like it, but we put our hands up because we were against the end-stop.

Beverley Hughes: I understand that the part of the motion relating to the initial hour was not challenged during the discussions.
	Let me make a general point. The time scale applying to the Bill is by no means out of kilter with time scales applied by past Governments to similar emergency legislation. If anything, the time has been more generous than that provided for other emergency legislation.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that on previous occasions emergency legislation has been far narrower and tightly defined, and has not included a lot of other stuff that is not much to do with terrorism?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is not taking into account the point that
	It being Twelve o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day].
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 24 to 37 and 67 to 70 agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Paul Goggins, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Beverley Hughes, Simon Hughes and Mrs. Anne McGuire; Beverley Hughes to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee[Mrs. McGuire.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, C., BILLS

Ordered,
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. David Cairns, Mr. Martin Caton, Mr. Colin Challen, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mr. Paul Farrelly, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacDougall, Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Anthony Steen be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, c., Bills.[Mr. Stringer.]
	Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

PETITIONS
	  
	Travellers

Bill Wiggin: It gives me great pleasure to present this petition, particularly as the travellers concerned have now moved to Withington, a village that is deeply distressed by that development.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the concerned residents of Leominster sheweth
	That the travellers currently residing in Leominster and Withington should be removed to one of the sites in Herefordshire that is specifically dedicated to travellers where they will be welcome and safe, as Leominster residents have been caused considerable distress. Also that the Government considers releasing funds in order to increase police numbers in Herefordshire to protect citizens of that county from crime,
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Herefordshire council to relocate the travellers in Leominster to a dedicated travellers site and increase police funding.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Policing (Rugby)

Andy King: I wish to present a petition of some 3,000 signatures:
	The petition of residents of the villages in the south sector of the borough of Rugby
	Declares that police staffing levels in the area are numerically inadequate given rising crime levels
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take such action as lies within his power to increase the number of bobbies on the beat in the southern sector of the borough of Rugby.
	To lie upon the table.

Foundation Stage

Bob Russell: The petition of Margaret Edgington of Colchester, schoolteachers and parents and others from many parts of the country deals with the introduction of the foundation stage of the national curriculum. The petitioners are concerned that some practitioners are being hindered in their attempts to implement the principles of the foundation stage. They feel that there is a lack of continuity of approach and of expectation from the new foundation stage to key stage 1; and that the expectation for children's achievements in years 1 and 2 are incompatible with the early learning goals set for children at the end of the foundation stage.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to require all Primary Headteachers, Advisers and Consultants to receive specialist training on the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage; to release the Foundation Stage from any requirement to implement the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies; to promote the extension into Key Stage 1 of the learning and teaching approach advocated for the Foundation Stage, and to remove pressure on schools to achieve limited academic targets at the end of Key Stage 1.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Social Services (Bedfordshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Pearson.]

Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on what I believe to be the issue of greatest concern in local authority funding. So great is my concern that I count it small cost to have waited here until 1.50 am last Thursday and to be here at six minutes past 12 this morning for the debate. I wish to consider the problems and the consequences of, and the solutions to, the issue of social services. I am keen to draw attention to that issue in Bedfordshire, but it is a national issue and the problems are no worse in my area than in the rest of the UK, and are probably better because of the careful financial management of the council over the past few years.
	I am grateful to the Minister for attending to respond to the debate and I hope that she will respond to the points I make, given that I telephoned her office with an outline of my speech last week.
	Social services spending has not been the political priority that it should have been under both Labour and Conservative Governments. There has been a long history of local authorities spending over their standard spending assessments. This year, Bedfordshire will spend 15 per cent. more, or 7.8 million, than the sum that the Government say we should spend, according to our SSA. That is in line with the average overspend of all counties in the south-east of England. Nationally, the overspend above SSA is 916 million, or 10.2 per cent. In addition, local authorities spend a further 200 million over and above those budgets to meet the demands placed upon them.
	The publicity that the issue receives is usually in connection with the care of the elderly, but the greatest financial pressures relate to children's services. The Association of Directors of Social Services estimates that 64 per cent. of the total overspend will be a result of the increased demand for children's services. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of children in need nationally rose by 6.8 per cent. to 381,000. The number of children in care has increased from 49,300 in 1994 to 58,100 in 2000. The number of children looked after under court orders has doubled since 1993.
	In adult services, reduced infant mortality and enhanced survival rates for children with disabilities impact on parents and siblings and on carers' ability to provide care as the carers themselves get older. In elderly care, we know that by 2007 the number of pensioners will have overtaken the number of children under 16. In the 12 months to June 2001, Bedfordshire social services received 5,969 referrals of older people in need. Many of those related to patients who should be discharged from hospital, but cannot be. In some cases, clients have died in distressingly inappropriate care.
	It is time that the recruitment for the 2,000 vacancies in child protection units nationally had the same national prominence as recruiting teachers and nurses currently receives. The 50 per cent. reduction in students applying to join the social work profession is also deeply worrying.
	The Government are often too keen to legislate without supplying the necessary funds to local authorities to implement the new laws. The result is that less care is provided on the front line. I shall give a recent example. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 came into force on 1 October, but the extra funding is insufficient to meet the additional responsibility placed on local authorities.
	Nationally, we know that we have lost 46,000 residential care beds over the past four years, and the Care Standards Act 2000 has hastened that decline, because it requires modifications to create larger room sizes and places new restrictions on room sharing. The quality of care and not the dimensions of the room should be what matters.
	There is also a lack of flexibility of funding between the NHS and social services. The close connection between the work of social services departments and the NHS means that there should be greater flexibility to spend the money between the two. The NHS has passed the lead responsibility for many services over to social services. For example, it has removed itself from the disability care field, leaving provision to be met through personal social services.

Jonathan Sayeed: Is not one of the real problems that the boundaries for social services and the NHS are different? Consequently, it is in the interests of hospital doctors to keep people in possibly inappropriate care under the social services. The obverse is also true. As a result, people do not get the best form of care appropriate to their need.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The difficulty that he describes certainly compounds the problem in Bedfordshire.
	A genuinely joined-up approach is needed, rather than buck-passing between the various agencies over which picks up the bill. The consequence of the problem that I have described is that vulnerable children in Bedfordshire will be at risk unless a further 4 million can be found.
	That is not a statement that Bedfordshire county council makes lightly. Its social services require an extra 10 million overall to enable them to give the necessary support next year, principally to children but also to people with learning disabilities, and to older people.
	Over the past few years, the county council has propped up social services budgets from its own resources. As a result, it has no reserves left to augment social services spending. Already, people on low or fixed incomes are telling me of their alarm at the size of the council tax rises that they will face to enable the council to meet its statutory undertakings.
	What is the solution? There is an urgent needin Bedfordshire and nationallyfor the Treasury to make a realistic assessment of funding requirements, based on actual and projected expenditure and not on outdated standard spending assessment formulas. The extra 223,500 a year for the next two years that was given to Bedfordshire in October is welcome, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to tackle the scale of the problem.
	Finance officers from Bedfordshire county council have told me that last week's provisional local government settlement for 2002-03 still leaves the council well short of the sums needed to protect the vulnerable next year. Services for children will receive only 0.5 million of the 4 million needed, and the overall shortfall on the projected social services budget for 200203 will be around 7 million. That is a huge sum for England's second-smallest county, with a population of only 380,000, to find.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has kindly given leave for this intervention. Does not he agree that the burden for Bedfordshire would be rather easier to bear if the health authority's budget was not so low? Doctors calculated that the budget was some 19 million short. There has been an injection of funds recently, but it goes nowhere near making up that shortfall. It would be much easier for social services and the NHS to combine if the budgets for Bedfordshire were more commensurate with need.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a further valuable point. I referred earlier to the NHS and social services working together, and his point is valid in that respect.
	Ring fencing must be allowed so that local authorities can direct money to areas of greatest need. Social services for children, for example, are excluded from benefiting from the 223,500 given to Bedfordshire last October. Greater partnership between the NHS and local social services is also needed. It is crazy, for example, that there is a difference between a social services bath and a medical bath and even crazier that the former is charged for and the latter is free.
	Governments of all persuasions must stop legislating without passporting the necessary funds for implementation. We must do all that we can to raise the status of social workers to encourage more people to enter the profession. We hear a lot about those who fall short, but little of the dedicated work of the vast majority of social workers who daily assist the needy and the vulnerable. I am sure that Bedfordshire colleagues would want to join me in paying tribute to the work of Lyn Burns, Bedfordshire's strategic director of social services, and her dedicated team for all the excellent work that they do.
	Bedfordshire social services has recognised the importance of working with user groups. It has agreed, for example, that the Multiple Sclerosis Society in Leighton Buzzard can help to train the department's social workers and other professionals, such as occupational therapists and care workers, in understanding the implications of that disease for clients and their families. That is an excellent and possibly unique initiative that will result in great benefit to multiple sclerosis sufferers and their families throughout Bedfordshire.
	We need to allow social workers to be included in the key worker accommodation that is currently concentrated on nurses and teachers in the high-cost south-east. We should also have a massive national campaign to promote fostering to attract more foster parents. Bedfordshire, like many counties, could do with more of these wonderful people. It is a scandal that only 2,200 children were adopted nationally last year compared with 20,000 in 1970. Let all children be considered for adoption and place a legal duty on social services to provide this. The stability and security given to our young people by an adopted family will often give them the best start to life.
	Given that the lion's sharesome 64 per cent.of the social services overspend is on children's services, we need to step back from the year-on-year budgetary implications and ask what is happening in our society that means that so many more of our children are in the care of social services. National and local government, schools and the media and voluntary and faith groups all have a significant role to play in supporting and upholding family life and promoting loving, responsible parenting.
	Southern European nations, such as Italy, with their strong sense of family solidarity, which leads to much lower rates of homelessness than the UK experiences, have much to teach us. I also urge the Government to study the social policies of states in America, such as Oklahoma, where non-judgmental, practical guidance to promote marriage is beginning to turn the tide. The work of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood in Washington DC has also had success in reinvolving absent fathers with their partners and children. Its work goes way beyond that of our Child Support Agency to address the emotional and relational poverty, as well as the material poverty, facing families.
	We must not think that there is a tide of family breakdown that we cannot turn. Family life can be strengthened with the necessary will.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on raising the important matter of social services in Bedfordshire and being willing, along with me, to stay up late on two separate occasions to discuss this issue.
	The hon. Gentleman is clearly keen to see high quality social care being provided for his constituents. That is what I want, too. I am pleased to have the opportunity to describe what the Government are doing to achieve that aim in Bedfordshire and throughout the country.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that Bedfordshire social services is facing difficulties this year as a result of financial pressures. I understand that the council's financial problems have been primarily related to children's services and services for adults with learning difficulties. In both these sectors, the council has had to fund external placements that have proved expensive.
	I am pleased to learn, however, that following staff changes and recruitment, the council is now developing a five-year children's strategy. This strategy, in which the voluntary sectorincluding NCHis expected to play a key role, will aim to reduce the council's level of external spending and make a bigger shift to family support. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important area of work.
	Bedfordshire has been trying to alleviate its financial problems in a number of ways. When the current director of social services took up her post about 12 months ago, she recognised that the council was heading for a significant overspend and took immediate action that has led to a clearer picture of the budget position. I understand that there has also been a review of financial systems to ensure clear accountability for budgets.
	I am also pleased that decisions about children's and adults' placements are now dealt with by a county panel, and that joint work has been undertaken with the health authority to make the best use of joint purchasing services for children. I shall return to the important issue of partnership workwith the health service in particular.
	The hon. Gentleman has made much of the amount of additional funding that Bedfordshire county council estimates that it needs next year. The timing of this debate is such that we are able to make reference to the very latest information about the considerable investment that the Government are making in social services. That investment has been growing substantially in real terms under the Government.
	Bedfordshire has benefited from that investment. This year, the council received an increase of more than 9 per cent. in its total personal social services resources, and will receive substantial extra funds for personal social services next year.
	The resources that we are making available next year for social services were announced in the statement on the local government settlement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We announced that Bedfordshire's personal social services standard spending assessment will increase by a further 6 per cent. The carers' grant will increase by a further 22 per cent. and the children's grant by a further 14 per cent. Increases of that size demonstrate the Government's commitment to social care and to making up previous underspend.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the position for older people. His figures on care place losses are wronglike those of his colleagues. However, the Government are concerned about maintaining sufficient capacity in our care homes sector for older people, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomesindeed, I think that he did sothe 447,000 made available in early October to assist Bedfordshire county council in providing capacity and in ensuring that older people in the county have care where and when they need it. Bedfordshire will, of course, receive its share of the 200 million being made available in the next financial year for that purpose.
	The hon. Gentleman made much of the need for further resources for personal social services. I agree with him: social services departments need more resources. That is why those resources have increased by 20.7 per cent. in real terms between 199697 and 200203an average real-terms increase of 3.2 per cent. per annum. Although there is still more work to be done, I am proud that the Labour Government have achieved that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to compare those figures with the average annual real-terms growth of 0.1 per cent. per annum between 199293 and 199697 under the previous Government.
	The hon. Gentleman may believe that the extra investment that the Government are making available for social services is a drop in the ocean, but it is nevertheless money that his party failed to pledge to match at the June general election.

Jonathan Sayeed: Does the Minister agree that since the Government came to power and changed the rules for SSAs county councils have lost 700 million due to those changes?

Jacqui Smith: No, but I recognise the significant extra investment in some of the key local authority functions, such as education and personal social services, and those increases in investment did not occur under the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the SSA regime introduced under the Government of whom, I believe, he was a member is flawed and needs to be reformed, I agree with him. That is why this Labour Government are pledged to reform that system in time for the local government settlement next year.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire also referred to the support given to families, which is an important factor. The Government recognise that early intervention and family support is key to tackling child poverty and social exclusion. We have therefore set out a wide-ranging programme to support parents and families, which concentrates on five main areas: better services and support to parents; better financial support to families; helping families balance work and home; strengthening marriage; and better support for serious family problems.
	Some 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty, as a result of the Government's tax and benefit changes. Child benefit has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms, to 15.50 a week for the first child. Some 1.2 million families now benefit from the working families tax credit. We have established new rights to help people balance their work and their home lives, better maternity entitlement, the right to paid holidays, paternity leave and protection against working excessive hours.
	The new National Family and Parenting Institute has been set up to provide quality advice to the Government, the voluntary sector and parents themselves on the very difficult task on parenting. We have created the first ever national child care strategy, and 295,000 child care places have already been established, helping 540,000 children.
	The first Minister with responsibility for young people has been appointed, and a new children and young people's unit has been created to develop an overarching strategy for children and young people's services.
	A wide range of family support services is provided by local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that our children's services needed more investment. Those services include advice, guidance and counselling, day care, home help, family centres and so on. That is why the Government introduced the now five-year, 885 million quality protects programme in England, with the aim of improving the management and delivery of children's social services.
	Government objectives to improve outcomes for children and young people in need have been set and local authorities are expected to show, and have shown, steady improvement towards the achievement of those objectives in their annual quality protects management action plans.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issues of fostering and adoption. The Government have supported national fostering recruitment campaigns, and I agree with him that it is crucial to attract more people. The Adoption and Children Bill, which is being considered by the House, represents the first opportunity for 25 years to modernise the legislation on adoption. It will place a duty on local authorities to provide adoption support services, backed up by 66 million of extra investment. More children have already been adopted out of care under this Government, but, of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to meet the Government's target of 40 per cent.or even 50 per cent.more children being adopted out of care by 2004.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of recruitment and retention in Bedfordshire. The Government are aware that there are problems in recruiting social workers throughout the country, and I agree with him that we must all ensure that we praise the excellent work that many social workers do, day in day out, to protect the most vulnerable people in our communities. We take the issue of recruitment and retention very seriously, which is why on 10 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health launched a national recruitment campaign aimed at informing the public about social work and social care and at encouraging recruitment and retention. I am very pleased that there have so far been 13,198 responses to the campaign, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that 123 of those are from the Bedfordshire area.
	We are also introducing a three-year degree-level qualification in social work to replace the current two-year diploma courses. That represents a unique opportunity to transform the status, image and position of social workers and to build on the best of social work education and training. The degree-level qualification will come into effect in England from September 2003. In addition, the Secretary of State last year announced extra investment in training for social workers and social workers currently in employment, because it is important that we not only recruit more social workers but retain those who are already in the service.
	The funding of social services is, of course, important, as is the way in which councils use the funding that they receive. We are determined that the money for social services should be used to improve and modernise them. Improvements are happening. We recently published the latest set of performance indicators for the 150 councils with social services responsibilities. There is overall improvement, and steady progress is being made towards the Government's priorities.
	To build on that progress, the Secretary of State recently announced that we would set about devising an overall assessment methodology that will allow us to analyse all the performance information available to us, and to generate an overall performance score. The aim is to introduce, by next spring, an overall assessment system similar to that announced in September for the NHS. Not only will that information be helpful for service users and their carers but it will be vital for the Government and local authorities, improving their ability to spot problem areas and to take appropriate measures to generate improvements where these are needed.
	Of course, those improvements cannot always be delivered by social services departments alone. It is important that the various responsibilities of councils, whether in education, leisure or other services, are co-ordinated with those of social services departments to ensure that we meet, in the round, the needs of the people served by those departments. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues pointed out, it is crucial for older people, those with learning disabilities, people with mental health problems and children that departments work properly with health authorities.
	This Government have, in the Health Act 1999, introduced the flexibility necessary to ensure that local authorities and health authorities can work together more effectively. That flexibility is currently being considered in Bedfordshire; for example, in the commissioning of joint equipment stores, which will utilise a pooled budget, and in the development of a joint commissioning agency for learning disabilities, for which a strategy is being developed throughout Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire with the health authority. Organisations are moving towards primary care trust status. The ability to work more carefully together will ensure that the extra funding going into health and social services is used in the most effective way for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and everybody in the country who needs to benefit from those services.
	I have spent some minutes describing those major developments because they all contribute to the Government's vision of social services in the 21st century. Those initiatives, backed up by significant extra investment, provide a coherent framework for improvement. People who use social services, in Bedfordshire as elsewhere in the country, deserve and expect high quality services. We have set ourselves a challenging agenda, but we have shown ourselves willing to invest and reform to ensure that we deliver for all the people who need those services.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	  
	European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13425/01, Draft Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between the Member States; and supports the Government's active participation in the debate on the draft Framework Decision and the Government's intention to ensure that extradition within the European Union takes place on the basis of the principles of mutual recognition.
	The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 146.

Question accordingly agreed to.